Hot and heavy landing with 3d camera rig

[mickjoebill]

The director had written the script before take off.

"gunna be rock and roll time"
"its hot out here"
"my first flight"
"3000 feet"
"flying close to the cliffs"
"flying though gorges and valleys"
"gonna be a hellava ride"

No doubt this "making of" video itself is meant to be dramatic, but lessons can be learnt!

Low flying, 5 pob, nose mount with two cameras plus personal bags at 3000 feet on a hot day?

By the way those flight cases stacked up on the back seat are 24 volt batteries.


3D Rigs At 3000ft - YouTube


Mickjoebill

[krypton_john]

High octane gasoline?

407 Jetranger?

FFS.

Flying machine of death?

Well, that could have been true.

[GoodGrief]

I'm speechless, but not in a good way...:ugh:

[HeliHenri]

Hello,

As VF would say, the load is correct but that's not the right aircraft for that job :
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/483614-top-world-photos-nepal-28.html#post7300255
.

[MBJ]

The 407 should be at least as good as a 350B2 but there had to be at least 2 people they didn't need in there. Too much talking ballast!

[mickjoebill]

In other industries there would be an inquiry if the workforce were endangered, but in "luvvy" land a video is made for entertainment and self promotion :ugh:


Mickjoebill

[MikeNYC]

Not only the wrong machine for the job, but most of that equipment can be run off of aircraft power, so you can dump some heavy batteries in the process.

Agreed, un-needed people on board. Like the Mexican TV Bell 407 crash (http://www.nycaviation.com/2012/09/mexican-producer-killed-in-helicopter-crash/#.UF3VXKRktac) a few days ago, with 5 on board and camera gear.

[Nubian]

Normal ops when the director infact acts as PIC, and the one flying is just a driver.
Having done a few movieflights, I know how the customer is always pushing for full bag of gas, all sort of equipment and bring his whole team, "cause the helicopter is expencive so we have to utilize it to max...."
Good it did not end in tears in the end though.

[Devil 49]

I wonder how emphatic the discussion that leads to flying into the slope and kicking pax out?
"This is a bad idea, low, slow and uphill. I'm running out of power..."
"The shot's great! I want more! This is what we're paying you for, don't quit now..."

[Helinut]

So lucky it was only bent kit

[rotorrookie]

The shots in the video where ok but not that great, all of them where to fast flying in my opinion, next time you go to do beauty landscape take the speed down to 60 at least, like the beach reveal shot in the end would have looked much better if you did it in "first gear", we pilots tend to think that we are selling rollercoaster rides in filming, an yes sometimes we are, but landscape footage is about making the best visual experience for the viewers.

Then why did they have to be 3 to operate this mount? I have flown with the libra head and it needed only 1 operator and he was in the back with all his gear and the director in the co-pilot seat, that's it
I have often seen it, when flying for the filming industry, guys trying make them self "essential" or important for the flight just to go on helicopter ride. It a good rule to keep number of pax to absolute minimum just in case if **** hits the fan.

[mickjoebill]

The shots in the video where ok but not that great, all of them where to fast flying in my opinion, next time you go to do beauty landscape take the speed down to 60 at least

Someting I've mentioned before is for pilots to discuss in advance the ability to run the camera at 1.5 or 2x higher frame rates. ie slow motion, so that you can then fly 1.5 or 2x AS FAST to maintain a higher saftey margin when low.

Then why did they have to be 3 to operate this mount? I have flown with the libra head and it needed only 1 operator and he was in the back with all his gear and the director in the co-pilot seat, that's it

There was a DP to pan tilt and frame in the front seat with libra control and monitor. In the back was director, the libra tech (to look after the libra and to correct the roll during a shot) and a sterographer or 3d tech to run a particular function of the 3d camera. This particular 3d control is called convergence and is generally only needs to be operated as a necessity when the subject comes CLOSE TO THE CAMERA, ie under 50ft!


I have often seen it, when flying for the filming industry, guys trying make them self "essential" or important for the flight just to go on helicopter ride. It a good rule to keep number of pax to absolute minimum just in case if **** hits the fan.
I'd suggest the more "talking ballast" as MJB calls them:ok: the higher probability of an incident as there are more agendas, more weight, more chatter, more pressure, less endurance.

The director mentions a two day shoot so perhaps those bags stacked on the rear seat could have been personal bags and the chopper was acting as both film ship and taxi?



Mickjoebill
trying to protect pilots and crews from each other!

[JimBall]

Fascinating posts. More for the background to pilot/cam op/client relationships. We simply don't take on work for people who don't recognise the command structure. And our crews will not accept unreasonable pressure from anyone. Commander means exactly that. In the clip, it is plain that the one most at fault is the pilot for not enforcing his position. He appears to have just let someone strap all this kit on and go flying without doing a basic w&b calc.
Aerial filming is what we do all the time and we have the luxury of not accepting every task. I realise that it must be more difficult in more rural areas where revenue streams can be thin.
But the essential principle always applies - safety first, shots second, pilot in command, cam op in unison.
Anyone who doesn't want to run to that rule can go to the talking ballast camp being set-up by MBJ.

[Aviator609]

Contact Bill Olmsted (seen at 1:16 into the clip, busy refuelling), the pilot involved here and get the facts. He is at Xcel Aviation (http://www.xcel-aviation.co.za/).

He has been in the helicopter industry in South Africa for years and is very experienced veteran in all aspects of aerial photography, having gone as far as designing his own nose mounted rigs. I have personally known him for years and he is one of the safest and most conscientious guys I know.

Here is some of his work as depicted in IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0647480/), more than 13 movies in all, excluding his work on documentaries etc.

You surely cannot say the same for the first time flyer director/producer/narrator/script writer/passengers on the flight in the youtube video, with a 3D rig used for the first time on the B407. Some of the comments just show their lack of experience!

Bill will most certainly not have done work risking everybody’s lives at these altitudes, and that is possibly why he dropped them all off, even though he is used to working at high density altitudes.

“Hot and high” conditions are commonly encountered in South Africa. The Highveld region, in Gauteng, South Africa where a large percentage of helicopter flying occurs, the elevation of most airports start around 5500'AMSL, with temperatures exceeding 30° Celcius in summer. OR Tambo International Airport comes in at 5558’ AMSL.

The guys routinely do full on training of PPL’s here in R22’s and other piston helicopters.

The video also incorrectly states 3D at 3000’AMSL. The Drakensberg, where the video was taken in South Africa starts around 7000’AGL and goes up to 11424’ AMSL with temperatures always above ISA. True, it is easy to get to incredible density altitudes!

Stating that the B407 is not capable or the wrong machine is based on what? Singles are the most commonly used in South Africa, and even then the costs are still astronomical and helicopter availability or choice severely limited. Alternatively show me a twin engine helicopter, other than say an AW 139 that can do the job as well as an AS 350 B2/3 or B407 at this altitude, but at what extra cost?

In my personal experience, this B407, rated at 5250lbs MAUW, is more than capable of handling 5 POB, camera equipment and 400lbs of Jet A1, even at 7000’ AMSL, Out of Ground Effect. This is corroborated by quickly looking at the performance specifications (http://www.prairiehelicopters.com/407_ProdSpecs.pdf) at ISA +20 as seen in the product specifications of the B407.

Granted, more people more risks, and it seems like this system being new requires a crew of at least 3 plus the pilot. There will always be risks, but it should be managed or perhaps we shouldn’t be making aerial films at all, as losing just 1 person is as bad as 5 people.

As mentioned, call Bill, I am sure he will be glad to hear from you and field any of your questions.

[mickjoebill]

is more than capable of handling 5 POB, camera equipment and 400lbs of Jet A1, even at 7000’ AMSL, Out of Ground Effect.

Aviator 609,
The definition of "capable" and "safe" is subjective.
If the best/safest/only course of action that could be taken was to gently shove the payload into the long grass and eject the passengers then it was a capable machine.

But would the passengers agree as they watched it fly away?

Another point.
Should the certification of nose brackets include a requirement for payload ground clearance and a restriction on upslope landings?

Does the somewhat buried payload require a lower tail down attitude to escape the upslope?



Mickjoebill

[flyvantage]

Gives aerial filming, the companies and safe, experienced crews (Pilots AND technicians) a bad name. They are not all like that and most of the experienced guys would certainly not have done it like that.

[southerncanuck]

Having installed a few nose mount on 206/407's, the location of the mount used in this operation is a little suspect.
from past experiences, a mount forward of and close to the pitot static has a tendency to "blank" the pitot during high AOA, in particular during an auto, when its nice to have a good A/S indication.
be interested to know if this mount shown has that effect
cal

[BlenderPilot]

In my part of the world, 3,000 FTAMSL is NOT remotely HOT and HIGH, our home airport is 8,445FTAMSL with typical ISA's +20°C.

I think the narration is a little exaggerated . . .

[Helinut]

BP,

post 14 suggests 7,000ft

[GeneF]

there are so many calculators out there! With one of them you can even calculate hover ceilings and performance. It's called performance pad for the iPad but it is for Robinson R44 only....

at least they survived! :rolleyes:

[Bill Olmsted]

Aviator609, thank you for noting my name and asking someone to contact me for clarification. A pilot did contact me to ask me what the circumstance of the landing had been and I felt this post deserved a response.

The Bell 407 was totally capable of handling the load and conditions of the day. I have a couple of 1000 hours of filming experience and in fact that is currently 95% of my flights and the 407 is my favourite for the job.

On the day of video we shot in the Mountains between 9 to 10,000 feet in the morning with reduced fuel as we had positioned from Jhb. When the filming was completed we landed to refuel and pickup the director from the Lodge, as we could not get in due to cloud, earlier. The plan was then to follow a river down the mountains and ferry to the coast to continue with what they required there. We were close to MAUW, which is never nice for filming but the main purpose of the flight was to ferry to another location.

We shot down the river in the mountains and the director asked if we could perhaps shoot a stretch going up the river. Ah .. yes we can but we will be quite fast over the ground as we will be climbing and need to keep the speed. The director asked that I go as slow as I felt we could, which I did. I misread the wind coming though a V and ended up with too little airspeed to climb up the hill.

Now there were a couple of options, one being, to get ham fisted and footed and force the helicopter around into the wind risking over temping the helicopter or ... landing in a downwind situation in a bowl, due to the ground clearance for the camera, to ask the passengers in the rear to exit, so I could take off and hover turn into the wind at a lower weight and ask them to walk to where I could land on the ridge about 100 meters away. We did just that. On landing I asked them to exit from one door, on the left which was lower and not to walk away from the helicopter, due to the danger of the slope, and to kneel by helicopter until I lifted off. Which they did. No damage to anyone or anything.

In short, yes, I messed up .... and sorry if I let the side down!! Maybe on the good side and really why I wanted to respond to this post, is that in being human, and doing specialised flying, I may mess up again in another situation but the most important thing, I think, is to realise the situation early, so you can take whatever action is required, while there are still options. My two cents ... hope it may help someone.

[farmpilot]

I have flown with Bill for years and will continue to.