quade 4 #1 March 4, 2002 I orginally posted this on Safety and Training, but I think it goes here too.QuoteHerbst's attorney, Imanuel Arin, said the evidence will clearly show Pappadato deviated from the plan during the jump. Herbst was below Pappadato when Pappadato struck him, and the "low man always has the right of way."All I can say is, "F@ck NO!"While "low man" may apply to traffic patterns for landing, it definately does NOT apply to freefly or camera flying.There's absolutley no way for a camera flyer to avoid a collision if somebody DOESN'T track and decides to deploy under them.So, just to make it perfectly clear, Herbst's attorney, Imanuel Arin, can go try camera flying himself sometime. (I originally used a dirty word there, but I'm afraid of getting sued.)quadehttp://futurecam.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
YahooLV 0 #2 March 4, 2002 I would like to say, "Get all of the facts" before printing. First of all, the videographer did NOT follow dive plan and deploy at assigned altitude. The other skydiver in question is an talented skydiver, and followed dive plan. What you may NOT know is that among other things, the video parachute blew up, causing a violent side spin. The article printed in the "Dropzone.com" is in error, and despite how people feel personally about MIchael Hawkes, it was a very safe place to skydive. I say was because of the current conditions to "fun jump" there now. Low man DOES have the right of way and when tracking or shooting videos, we need to be aware of our surroundings and who is below us. When it comes down to it, we are responsible for ourselves. We need to remember when it comes to deployment, that we let everyone who might be near know that we're going to deploy and if we're above someone, take appropriate action. I have read the article, and am appalled by the apparent disregard of facts given the family's attorney. But, then again, that's his job. Don't be so quick to judge until EVERYTHING is out in the open. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #3 March 4, 2002 >There's absolutley no way for a camera flyer to avoid a collision if somebody DOESN'T track and decides to deploy under them.I lost a friend of mine, John O'Hara, when he tracked off a little ways on breakoff rather than taking the center (he was the cameraman.) He was concentrating on his subject (another jumper breaking off) and didn't see the jumper deploying directly under him. The impact killed him instantly and tore the other jumper's leg off.It was a case where the cameraman did not check beneath him _and_ didn't quite follow the plan - and paid the ultimate price. As someone else pointed out, it's the responsibility of both cameraman and trackers to avoid each other.-bill von Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #4 March 4, 2002 QuoteDon't be so quick to judge until EVERYTHING is out in the open.The facts in the case in question are not what I'm upset about.What I'm upset about is the concept that it's somehow OK if you're lower and decide to cork or just deploy whenever the hell you feel like it because "the low man always has the right of way."I simply do NOT agree with THAT statement.quadehttp://futurecam.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #5 March 4, 2002 Quote. . . it's the responsibility of both cameraman and trackers to avoid each other.And to that I will agree.I simply do not think the low man has any "rights".quadehttp://futurecam.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Iflyme 0 #6 March 4, 2002 It will be interesting to see how the courts interpert our low-man protocols. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ltdiver 3 #7 March 4, 2002 QuoteI would like to say, "Get all of the facts" before printing.Neither of these articles below are either complete or accurate. I'm sure in the coming weeks we'll see how lawyers can twist the interpretation of what they want to see. Tragic for us all.I know this topic is very near and dear to your heart, Curt.Reading the two accounts I've seen so far, however, looks like a 'he said, she said' kind of finger pointing. See: http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2002/Mar-01-Fri-2002/news/18211022.htmlandhttp://www.dropzone.com/features/Otherskydiversblamedinde.shtmlBlues,ltdiver__________________________________________http://www.discover.net/~ltdiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #8 March 4, 2002 QuoteThe other skydiver in question is an talented skydiver, and followed dive plan. What you may NOT know is that among other things, the video parachute blew up, causing a violent side spin.Help me reconcile these two statements.Are you saying that Pappadato deployed and then had his mal over another jumper that had previously tracked away?I'm at a loss to see exactly how those two statements go together unless it was almost an exact replay of the incident Bill Von was mentioning. Even then, it doesn't -quite- make sense to me.quadehttp://futurecam.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skymedic 0 #9 March 4, 2002 Quoteand despite how people feel personally about MIchael Hawkes, it was a very safe place to skydive.uhh...Hello...we CAN'T skydive there....unless your one of his people...so dont tell me how safe it is or isn't unless Mr.Hawkes(tandemfactory man) opens it up to all the USPA people....marcBSBD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #10 March 4, 2002 Quoteso dont tell me how safe it is or isn't unless Mr.Hawkes(tandemfactory man) opens it up to all the USPA people....I think Yahoolv is qualified to speak toward the safety issues of that dropzone before the accident in question.Obviously, few of us can speak toward its safety at this point.quadehttp://futurecam.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skymedic 0 #11 March 4, 2002 very true quade....marcBSBD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
