Next...
To answer your question---the cameraman would simply get out and swim. I personally do NOT advocate the wearing of a typical life vest over water. If you crash, there will be flying debris which could puncture the vest, also as you swim out of the wreckage, chances are you will snag the vest also. The only option really would be to wear one of the "stole" type vests...or one of the vests in a pouch around your waist. He was using a "glidecam" NOT a "steadicam". The Glidecam is a simpler system utilizing weights, (I have one). Any of the vests I mentioned can be worn with a glidecam system.
There are some jobs that have risk associated with them. All one can do is mitigate those risks to the best of your ability with the production funds available. The production I am guessing was doing it on the "cheap", although I like it---it does have an "amateurish" look to it. One could argue using a float equipped helicopter or twin engine. Most companies who do this type of work in the US have FAA approved "Movie Production Manuals", along with all the required waivers. I suspect the helicopter in this case was just a local operator with no movie background.
A couple of observations:
1. At minute 2:24 you can see the reflection of the camera platform in a window---not good.
2. The helicopter shots were not the smoothest......
3. Towards the end, they show the helicopter. I realize it probably had something to do with "product placement", but it was tacky. IMHO it would have been better to not show how the last shot was obtained. The ultimate goal of any helicopter shoot is to NOT give away that it was filmed from a helicopter. Next time you watch a movie---pay attention and see if you can tell which scenes, if any, are filmed from a helicopter.
Having said all that----I kinda like the movie.
Edited to add: Mickjoebill...just looked at your profile and saw you are a cameraman....I suspect you have more "observations" about the technical aspect of the filming than me...
