Bungee camera mounts

[mickjoebill]

With the increase in aspirational filmakers, there seems to be a growing use of home made bungey mounts for aerial filming.
This technique is regularly being advised on international cameraman forums as a clever and cheap way of steadying the camera to shoot low budget jobs.

A few bungies are attached to the door frame and the video camera (4 to 8 kilos) is attached to the bungey.

Apparently pilots who fly these shoots think that this is acceptable and legal.

Are they right?



Mickjoebill

[TRC]

Apparently pilots who fly these shoots think that this is acceptable and legal.

Are they right?
No, and no.

[Nubian]

TRC,

Please elaborate.

[TRC]

These mounts are neither acceptable or legal.

Anything attached to a helicopter needs to be approved - these 'home-made' contraptions aren't likely to be approved anywhere.

No approval means the C of A is instantly invalid and therefore the insurance is also invalid.

Simple really.

I do know that there are some operators and pilots who have no regard for these regs and are very happy to fly all sorts of un-approved equipment, but the bottom line is that as soon as they start engines the insurance evaporates.

I wonder how many of these camera guys know this.

[Hughes500]

TRC

That is not correct i am afraid, example I was the pilot for Mr Connery's drop from 2450 ft with no parachute into cardboard boxs. We had most of the CAA there and asked about putting 4 GoPro camera onto the skids, cargo hook and on suckers inside with safety wire. Was told by the CAA as they were temporarily and not bolted/ welded to the aircraft then there was no problem. Now you cant beat it from the horses mouth !!!!!

[TRC]

OK, carry on then. Good luck and have fun.

[Savoia]

Mickjoebill: These bungee straps have been around for a very long time and have been used by photographers for both video and still shots from numerous helicopters all around the world.

I am sure however, that as TRC has said, these home-made arrangements (as you intimated) are not a certified accessory approved for aeronautical use.

However, as Hughes has pointed-out .. this does not mean that NAA's will not be willing to provide temporary approval for their use, they clearly do. I would hazard-a-guess though and say that many photographers/operators have not traditionally bothered requesting such approvals in the past.

I know quite a number of pilots who use GoPro's with the sucker mount on the exterior of the fuselage and my further guess is that NAA's probably won't say much until one escapes into the rotor-works (God forbid!).

As TRC says .. have fun .. and don't forget to showcase the fruit of your labour!

[homonculus]

We go through this with medical equipment ad nauseam

If it is permanently mounted in any way or draws power then the mount and the equipment have to be approved - the latter requires both bench checks for interference and fire risk plus a test flight. Approval is only for a particular model number and a particular aircraft type.

Other equipment does not need approval but the commander must specifically approve it and accepts full responsibility for security, fire risk and interference.

Insurance is an interesting point I have never seen tested. The insurance is not voided by carrying the equipment but it is interesting to postulate the situation were the equipment to cause a claim as the commander might be argued to have failed in his duty of care in giving permission where de facto it should have been refused.........

[TRC]

Other equipment does not need approval but the commander must specifically approve it and accepts full responsibility for security, fire risk and
interference.
By its purpose, a bungey mount is going to be in an open doorway, and the video camera (4 to 8 kilos) is half in and half out of the door. How the 'mount' is attached to the aircraft hasn't been described yet.

I don't see how this sort of installation can be compared to internal medical equipment.

Similarly, the means of restraint for the camera operator is often totally unacceptable - industrial harnesses that take ages to get out of, and tethers long enough for the guy to be at or below skid level if he falls out - let alone where they'll end up in a forced landing or crash.

[vfr440]

TRC, we stand together on this one - age (wisdom?) & youth (32) side by side.. The observation about the 'restraint' for the camera-man is particularly germane. Many strenuous discussions as I recall at F/O in the past with just such a matter. Loads of customer enthusiasm, but less attention to that we had advised should be complied with.

And, though I haven't checked with my Insurance gurus in the City, I fear the situation you outline may well be the exact one come an 'arrival' at some point. Insurance my not entirely evaporate, but I'd bet that there would be severe limitations on what/who is covered and for how much.

And the Commander's decision is final. (after all, he's the one who has to answer the difficult questions if it all goes South in a hurry). I agree - tell insurers, NAA before you get airborne, what you wish to do and get an exemption of some kind. - VFR

[chopjock]

There are advantages in using a bungie.
Keeping the lens inside, you can film in the rain with the door off and using the airframe as an umbrella.
If the lens gets wet just wipe it clean again instantly, without having to land like you have to with a gimbal.
If you do it in the front seat then the pilot can usually see what's being filmed too.

There doesn't need to be anything dangerous about it.

[John Eacott]

TRC,

I am surprised that you imply the UK has no criteria laid down for cameraman harnesses and their use? This was addressed in Oz many years ago and the harnesses must have an emergency release to allow one handed detachment from the wander lead, plus a certified attachment point in the aircraft.

Most harnesses are modified parachute rigs with a three ring connection at the top of the rear strap which is released by pulling the 'ripcord'. Attachment within the helicopter has to be such that it is designed to take the shock load in the correct direction, for instance the harness points in many helicopter is not suitable so a separate approved point is needed. Bell sell one for the 206 which bolts to the wall below the rear seat, and is 'handed' with the pull being outboard whether mounted for left or right door use.

To imply that any pilot worth his salt would allow a cameraman to use a harness that isn't adjusted to keep him in the aircraft is just laughable: or is that an accepted culture now? We also have a camera restraint strap which secures the camera to the harness, again with a quick release function.

Finally, temporary attachments are just that, and there has to be a realistic outlook on approvals or we wouldn't even have somewhere to clip our pens in the cockpit to stop them being a loose article hazard ;)

[mickjoebill]

Two cameramen have drowned (one fixed wing one as350) tangled in their harness (one home made the other I assume so).

A cameraman fell out of a military helicopter when he unfastend his belt to check the security of a camera bag near the door at the same time as the aircraft rolled without any G.
Fortunately these incidents are very rare.

Does the pilot who thinks a few bungies clipped to the doorframe is ok, also think a dispatchers harness is not essential?

Another piece of advice given on cameraman forums is to secure the buckle of the lap belt with tape so if it gets caught on a camera it has some resistance to popping open.

The associated saftey issue of using a seat belt is that it has to be quite loose to allow the operator to sit across the seat. His hips are at 45 degrees to the seat back. Shouldn't belts be securely fastened?

WHilst a web of bungies, camera cables and straps may be legal, egress is impeded by them.
Also there is a sizable piece of camera not being able to be properly secured for landing or in an emergency.
Unsecured chunks of metal inches from the operators unprotected head could render him unconcious in just a heavy landing.



That is not correct i am afraid, example I was the pilot for Mr Connery's drop from 2450 ft with no parachute into cardboard boxs. We had most of the CAA there and asked about putting 4 GoPro camera onto the skids, cargo hook and on suckers inside with safety wire. Was told by the CAA as they were temporarily and not bolted/ welded to the aircraft then there was no problem.

A cineflex camera mounting bracket is not welded to the aircraft and is temporary yet needs six figures of $ to develop test and certify to CAA standard. If the paperwork as much as has a typo some engineers wont install it.
Ok, a large bracket and payload affects performance and flight, C of G ect.

With gopros installed here there and everywhere, shooting at an airshow last weekend I councilled against the placement of a DSLR clamped on a skid, mission creep!


The FAA gave the pilot a visit when I bolted a small lipstick camera on a gimbal in LA a few years ago.
We regularly attach a small comms aerial to a skid but beyond that I've learnt my lesson.

If the frequency of forum posts is a measure, the instances of aerial cameramen shooting on the cheap is increasing.
Clarification of insurance regarding loose seatblets, restricted egress, non certified mounts, nil helmets may produce some information that improves flight saftey.

A video tape jammed the pedals 25 years ago, a go pro has the same capacity.



Mickjoebill

[John Eacott]

MJB,

ISTR that the drowning was a Bell 47 crash into shallow water when filming near Cairns? This was the catalyst for the current CASA Regs relating to crew restraints in aircraft and also the associated approvals for their use. Operators approved for the use of cameraman's harness are required to comply with a raft of things such as the aircraft harness only during take off and landing, only one restraint to be used at a time (not both together), camera to be restrained/secured, webbing knife in a quick release pouch, harness quick release standards, adjustment of harness so the crew can't fall out, etc etc. This covers winchman, hoist operator, and all other rear crew involved in aerial work door open operations.

If the operation is such that the cameraman/photographer is restrained solely by the aircraft harness then due care should be taken to ensure the security of the harness: I have used paper tape as it can easily be torn if the harness release is needed in a hurry, the use of gaffer tape will usually ensure the harness needs a knife to cut the tape: not a Good Idea in an emergency!

I can't recall how long ago I rigged a bungee cord for a camera but it was done using only two cords going to the top corners of the door. Not sure it would be needed these days with all the options such as monopod gyro mounts, etc, that are readily available. Everything is a snagging hazard and loose articles within the aircraft will always be a possibility: management of that is part and parcel of a pilot's job :ok:

[Nubian]

MJB,

A cineflex camera mounting bracket is not welded to the aircraft and is temporary yet needs six figures of $ to develop test and certify to CAA standard. If the paperwork as much as has a typo some engineers wont install it.

No, but it requires tools to install and remove. That is what I have been explained is the difference between being required to be STC'd or not.

For the ones that is pulling out the good ol "insurance will evaporate". For this to happen, the commander must have shown gross negligence or deemed to have acted reckless in installing such unapproved equipment AND it has to be a (the) direct cause of the accident/incident.


But, don't worry about these things as this kind of flying is soon to be done exclusively by r/c drones that does not follow any kind of regs.... Just watch your heads.;)

[TRC]

To imply that any pilot worth his salt would allow a cameraman to use a
harness that isn't adjusted to keep him in the aircraft is just laughable

I'm not implying anything - I'm stating a fact.

I know of a stills guy who fell out after asking for a tight turn over a ship/oil platform/whatever, and was below hi-skid height on a 206.

I also remember a video cameraman who fell out and was dragged alongside the helicopter when it made a forced landing - there's an AAIB report somewhere.

So, tell me again that it doesn't happen.

[mickjoebill]

ISTR that the drowning was a Bell 47 crash into shallow water when filming near Cairns?

I hadn't heard of that one :sad:

The fixed wing took the life of the cameraman who shot Blair Witch.
FLYER Airportal - General Aviation News (http://www.flyer.co.uk/news/newsfeed.php?artnum=572)

The AS350 hit a wire pilot and director escaped but the cameraman was trapped by his harness.A full report including info about the harness here
http://www.bea-fr.org/docspa/2000/f-oe000822/pdf/f-oe000822.pdf

In both these cases all other occupants survived but the cameramen went down with the ship.

Excluding the R44 crash in NSW last year, there are other crashes where cameraman is vaugely described as trapped in the wreckage and where other occupants survived by exiting before fire broke out.

Just found another one, a Swedeish 296A hit a marker bouy, all escaped but the cameraman trapped by his harness.
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=cameraman%20trapped%20by%20harness%20helicopter&source=web&cd=20&ved=0CGMQFjAJOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.samson-tiara.co.id%2Fsamson%2Fuploads%2Fresearch%2FHumanFactorsRela tingtoEscapefromHelicopterPart1.pdf&ei=PLEXUZf2E6qWiQf524GoBA&usg=AFQjCNF5pElI4KFf1Q2L-ouPmvwmIcDU_Q&sig2=bEMVBJUoDGRhxp-1wuqSZw

A NZ pilot taught me to carry a knife and hatchet, even when working with a cineflex due to the probable disruption of the cabin in a prang and the amount of video and control cables in the cabin that could easily entangle the crew.


It seems that it is not unusual for a cameraman to suffer the worst injuries compared to other crew in an accident whilst filming out an open door, whilst the opposite is the case when using a stabilised nosemount.

Mickjoebill

[mickjoebill]

To imply that any pilot worth his salt would allow a cameraman to use a harness that isn't adjusted to keep him in the aircraft is just laughable

Seems that when a camera turns up, some parts of the brain take a holiday.
I once convinced the pilot of a US government emergency rescue helicopter to strap my waist and feet to the wheel strut of a S58D wessex, so I could stand on it without slipping off and achieve a nice shoot from outside the aircraft looking in...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_H-34

Shot was going well until we made a brisk landing after a strange vibration was felt in the cyclic.

That was a few years ago, has human nature changed since then?



Mickjoebill

[John Eacott]

To imply that any pilot worth his salt would allow a cameraman to use a harness that isn't adjusted to keep him in the aircraft is just laughable
I'm not implying anything - I'm stating a fact.

I know of a stills guy who fell out after asking for a tight turn over a ship/oil platform/whatever, and was below hi-skid height on a 206.

I also remember a video cameraman who fell out and was dragged alongside the helicopter when it made a forced landing - there's an AAIB report somewhere.

So, tell me again that it doesn't happen.

Please, read what I said and you quoted: the bit that says "any pilot worth his salt". I didn't say stupidity doesn't occur, I said that a professional pilot would not let it happen :ok: