View Full Version : PC-screen viewfinder for external digital camera?
Is there an inexpensive hobbyists' installation already out there for an externally mounted (tape-to-skid) digital camera wired into a laptop/notebook PC strapped to the empty left seat of an R22 or similar?
Seems it would make the impossible task of aiming & clicking the camera, while flying the heli, more feasible.
Probably easily available if I could afford an ENG ship. But for those of us doing it for fun, maybe just a few home-wired cables and a trackball would do the trick?
RobboRider
4th Aug 2004, 13:11
Doubt you could get it certified.
If you did it anyway and had a problem - no insurance & your local aviation dept would be onto you etc etc.
But I'm sure it would be relatively easily do-able.
rotorcraig
4th Aug 2004, 17:58
I sometimes get hungry when I'm flying.
Has anyone managed to get a microwave working in a 22?
(Probably more acceptable from an insurance perspective to do the 44 conversion, so that the chips can go 'ping' in the back and Mrs RC can act as a hostie?)
RC :ok:
Taking pictures while flying can be done, however why don't you you just take a passenger with a camera?
Answer: because said photos are being taken on solo flights from wilderness camping sites to wilderness spectacular scenery sites and back, no passengers available (least of all trustworthy photographically skilled) within hundreds of miles, whole entourage of RV and R22-on-trailer and the solo pilot absent from civilization for weeks at a time.
So, at the subsequent FAA investigation, they might get to conclude that the crash occurred because the pilot failed to enter auto in time due to the distraction of trying to operate an illegal modification to the aircraft eg camera/laptop/trackball.
FLY THE AIRCRAFT FIRST, SECOND AND ALWAYS.
One of the problems of private flying is that you are generally out of the flight safety information loop that exists in military or commercial ops - the number of aircraft lost due to pilot error/distraction is enormous - but if you have never seen the stories or read the crash comics, you won't benefit from learning from others mistakes. So many accidents have started as a 'this seems like a good idea' flash of inspiration - do you not think that the reason that there isn't a camera kit available is because it's a dangerous idea?
Crab: Well, frankly, no, I don't think so. And also: illegal modification? What was that? Who modified the aircraft?
If the FAA flinches at a duct-taped camera, then one just puts camera on a shoulder-holster-mount about 8" long projecting out a little through doorway; the PC straps under seatbelt like any other cargo, running on its own batteries, and the trackball, if there is one, is strapped to pilot's wrist like any large chronometer.
Pilot distraction/error because of the camera? (Gnash, gnash, why does it have to be me, Lord, explaining these things . . .) Sure, some of us have trouble multitasking, but if Flight Instruction is legal, how can Anything Else be cause for concern?
Witness the whole diverse rotary spectrum of ways to die spectacularly: long-line, mustering, Boatpix, pipeline patrol, medevac at night in unprepared LZ's, crop spraying, etc etc etc maybe a camera fits with all those others, maybe not . . . whatever, surely one doubts that there would be much market for a 10-hr course in "Photographic Mission Safety Concerns" or the like.
[The REALLY insane track, by the way, is my insurance company, who informed me that they would not insure me for photography if anyone else, like a photographer, was in the helicopter, but that I was welcome to do photography--with no increase in premium!--providing the other seat was empty. Idiots!]
Pa42 - you are a classic example of 'this seems like a good idea' coupled with 'I want to do this for my own self gratification' and a dose of 'I don't need advice because I know I'm good enough to get away with it'.
I am just trying to get a flight safety message across. The only thing you should concentrate on in an R22 is flying it.
Well, yes, Crab, you're probably right. But then, why do any of us do anything, expecially something as counter-survival as helicopters?
But if we follow your logic (don't do anything distracting), then (maybe in your haste you missed this in the previous post) we must NOT give flight instruction! And we must not do long-line, and we must not do mustering, and we must not do fish-spotting. These and many other (gasp!) common pilot pursuits are serious distractions and statistically proven very dangerous.
Why single out the poor little camera? The purpose of my thread is to REDUCE distraction by relieving the pilot of any need to hold the camera, and unblock his view of the instruments and sky, and make the whole thing considerably safer.
I encourage you to pursue your safety crusade in the halls of the FAA and prohibit flight instruction in helicopters. When you've converted them, then we can talk.
Thanks for the entertainment . . .
Dave
But as long as we're abandoning the posted subject (camera view) in favor of safety, let me help you out on the safety angle.
The FAA's official list of Hazardous Attitudes does not contain your pa42-tags. Your safety message, therefore, is vitiated by omitting the Official Buzz Words. But it's OK, I, too, speak Safety, and I'm Here to Help You (an official FAA slogan, in case you've had the good fortune to escape the vernacular in your possibly-FAA-free corner of the planet).
To fit into the official spectrum, we need to choose from the FAA's multiple-choice group of bad-thinking-modes (see any publication on Aeronautical Decision Making):
HazAtts:
1. anti-authority
2. impulsivity
3. invulnerability
4. macho
5. resignation
My trial translation of your descriptive titles suggests that I possess
a) impulsivity ('I want to do this for my own self gratification')
b) invulnerability,('I don't need advice because I know I'm good enough to get away with it')
c) macho?? ('this seems like a good idea')
d) anti-authority (or I wouldn't be drawn into debating angels on the head of a pin with you . . . .)
Which leaves, unfulfilled, resignation. Alas, alack, and Drat, I can't find a whole lot of resignation in my bad attitudes, I only score 80% on the test, except . . . possibly . . . oh, joy, if I give up my search for a better, safer viewfinder because of external bad vibes, then maybe I'm being resigned! Voila, 100% on the HazAtts test. I've arrived!
How'd I do? Are we having fun yet? For sure, this is almost the first time I've gotten a cramp in my tongue from having it stuffed in my cheek . . .
helmet fire
7th Aug 2004, 05:15
Interesting tooing and froing.
I think that crab, in his less than touchy feely way was actually trying to tell you something pa42. Look a bit into his responses for his message, and get over your sensitivities.
you said:
And also: illegal modification? What was that? Who modified the aircraft?
...um you did. May not be the same in the good ole US of A, but taping something to the skid is hardly an approved aircraft modification. Have you completed strain and durability tests on your duck tape, aerodynamic tests to determine there is no adverse stability effects of the camera drag throughout the flight envelope, CofG and balance sheets together with controlability issues? Have you determined the insurance issues resulting from a dropped camera/lens/plug/etc onto persons, property, or the extremely endangered furry critters in your wilderness area? Have you tested the camera equipment to ensure that nothing will vibrate loose, have you ensured that the camera equipment will in no way impede your egress from that side of the aircraft? etc etc.
Being a bit facetious I know, but you get the point.
As for your point about flight instruction - speaking of facetious - both pilots concentrating on the primary role of flying the aircraft, and the flight instructor is professionslly trained to do it. That is TWO on the job, not one who is trying to fly AND film and has not been professionally trained to do it. So avoid the sarcasm and look into the reponses that may be trying to help you.
:ok:
Well done, helmy, I think I've definitely now confirmed the presence of resignation. Will my heirs understand it all when they find my shriveled body wrapped in duct tape, the soul having departed as a result of suffocation while testing said tape for its aerodynamic effects when inhaled?
As for my having modified the aircraft: true, I suggested the duct tape in the initial post--it was supposed to help make it a simple search for the viewfinder issue--but then in second post ("curiouser and curiouser") I saw the error of my ways and eliminated duct tape in favor of a non-modification consisting of a shoulder mount for the camera, leaving the airframe untainted. Had you read that second post? Granted, either way your duct tape exposition is a masterpiece of representative governmental mouse-into-elephant transmogrification!
For the record, you speak out of turn when suggesting I am "one who is trying to fly AND film and has not been professionally trained to do it." In point of fact, I AM professionally trained to do it, drawings and diagrams and lesson plans and dual flight instruction, the works, as a heli pilot for a leading aerial photo concern. I'm just researching ways to improve the service/product!
Sensitivities? Hmm, if Crab trashes my safety expertise, and I then magnify and improve on his trashing by way of illustrating the ADM issues involved, admit my evil ways, and have a devilish good time turning the other cheek, while improving the dissemination of safety principles, don't I get even a small pat on the back? I thought the whole thing was done in excellent humor. Help me out, here: what kind of sack cloth and ashes would you consider appropriate atonement for the terrorist attack on public morality represented by asking about remote viewfinders?
By the by, vis-a-vis flight instruction: true, two pilots, both concentrating on flying the aircraft. One trying for right pedal aft cyclic, the other trying for left pedal forward cyclic? Hmmm, daunting prospect. The salvage yards are full of spare helicopter parts from flight training crashes; I have yet to find any wrecks with telltale scraps of illegal duct tape from camera incidents . . . And so I still feel safer with the camera, I doubt it will fight me for control of the aircraft at critical moments. And it doesn't weigh 240#, nor does it have halitosis.
helicurmudgeon
Pa42 - you do seem overly sensitive about this issue - Helmet fire is right, I could have been more touchy feely about trying to get the message across.
So, if I read your profile correctly, you are a FW pilot who is lucky enough to have his own helicopter, and you and a bunch of amigos enjoy trailering the helos around and flying them cross country - great, crack on and enjoy it.
However, it is not enough of a buzz just to fly around, and when you are solo there is no-one to share the experience with so you want to film it - sad but still OK.
Since you won't/can't take a passenger, you want to rig something up yourself and your first idea is to duct-tape the camera to the skid and operate the camera using a trackball and a laptop - this is not good for all the reasons that Helmetfire mentioned and plenty more.
My big question is WHY? watching hours of scenery flash past in a blur is hardly top-drawer home entertainment so why bother?
A cynical person might think that only someone who is up to no good and wants his friends to see how good a pilot he is at low flying might want to film it. Sounds ridiculous? I know of at least 2 occasions when pilots have dropped themselves in the poo by videoing themselves flying illegally.
Now I won't go so far as to say you might be doing anything of the sort but, if you and your amigos were into that sort of thing then a fatality is only a matter of time. As a matter of interest, how many helicopter hours do you have? you certainly seem to have a dislike for dual instruction.
Your FAA hazatts are typical of the results of profiling pilots who have had crashes and reflect the military findings where stable extroverts are allegedly the best choice for military flying.
That aside, the worst mindset is the pilot who believes himself to be better/ more experienced than he is, decides that rules are made for other people who are not as clever as him and pushes on with a potentially dangerous idea despite advice from others.
Hey, Crab, I like that you're perceptive of the arbitrariness and cheap-shot aspect of FAA's hazatts. How about posting a substitute hierarchy of ailments? With shorter titles, I hope.
2000 hrs, 17 years, CFI-H.
Why? I am a retired academic geologist, the R22 is for collecting scenery and studying geology outside national parks (I'm too old and too lazy to hike all that stuff any more--been there, done that).
So the mode is to prepare geo-travelogue & key, fly in, take a few (50?) well-composed still photos of stratigraphic sections in clifffs, or other similar landforms, then back to base camp and doctor the photos with labels and diagrams on the computer so they are sufficiently annotated to make sense to advanced students. Then I forward them to my academic colleagues. Free.
[Vis-a-vis "film:" it sounds like you're thinking moving pictures of some type. Not at all. I know of no digital camera that even takes moving pictures or films--the digital camera takes a single-frame-at-a-time "still" photo, like one's ordinary 35mm color print camera, except that ours holds over 900 frames each digital chip.]
Had thought to do the photos from robbo in flight, saving time and dangers of landing & shutting down and taking pix from (poorer) vantage points. I still think flying the heli into view, composing shot while circling (not hovering, thanks, at those DA's) then leisurely deciding to click camera THERE on next pass as part of planned profile, is a safe and sane operation.
But I guess other venues are more appropriate for solving the camera intricacies, so many folks on PPRUNE having knee-jerk misapprehensions regarding probable operational profiles. So I shall give up defending the Darwin Award rights to freedom of style. Sorry (well, slightly, anyway) to be so confrontational, couldn't resist the opportunity to bait you all.
How could anybody resist this one:
". . . pilot who believes himself to be better/ more experienced than he is, decides that rules are made for other people who are not as clever as him and pushes on with a potentially dangerous idea despite advice from others."
Macho arrogant outlaws, in short. Who you describing? Igor? Bensen? Wilbur? Orville? Shawn? Lu? Nick? Frank? Gee, whiz, Crab, what would you be doing for a living if it were not for all those macho arrogant outlaws???
Dave
irrepressible rotary picador
So you are a retired corporate FW pilot with a CPL, a helicopter instructor with 2000 hrs rotary and a retired academic geologist? wow you have been a busy boy or is your real name Walter Mitty?
imabell
9th Aug 2004, 06:53
pa42, with a great backgound like that, i must say i'm really surprised that you need any advise on the subject at all.
surely you have been there and done that already.
just strap the camera on and go do it.:E
pa42:
I think you need to add to your list of accomplishments extremely clever turn of phrase.
I must say that I am in the camp of non-modification because whilst you may be able to carry it off, I'm not sure encouragement should be given to other less capable persons (apart from it invalidating the CofA - if you have one). I'm not persuaded by your arguments but I do hope the thread continues so that we can continue to observe your ego-slashing prose.
More importantly:
I was intrigued by your reference to HazAtts - it is not something that we have seen in Europe; is it possible to post a reference to the text (or PM me if you do not wish the others to see and read it - and use it against you).
for Mars: gee, gosh, thanks for the nice comment. May I send you some deposit slips for my bank??
And, oh, yes, the FAA has been on a major toot about Aeronautical Decision Making (ADM) for years now, issueing various texts on how to decide things (Should I crash? Should I turn myself in if I take an Aspirin? Will anybody notice if I fly under that bridge?). They take it quite seriously (as should we all, on serious subjects) and have incorporated it into flight tests and training manuals and all.
Personal health and stress indicators are part of the package (acronym: I'M SAFE, includes Medications, Stress, etc). They try hard. It stretches one to follow the acronyms and logical jumps inherent in the legislation of morality, but I think we'd all agree that we're a few percent safer just for having our cages rattled on seldom-mentioned subjects.
A definite source: the FAA's Rotorcraft Flying Handbook has a whole chapter on ADM. I believe the Aviation Instructor's Handbook (FAA bible for CFI candidates) also has that chapter. And (at least) Gleim's FIRC: Flight Instructor Refresher Course. So there is little chance the textual sources will disappear from the face of the Earth before you manage to get here. (But why come?)
I have an abstract on disc, will PM it to you when the mood strikes, right now my honey's mood is striking, a definite better offer.
========
Imabell: you is right as rain, my superb 20-20 hindsight now reveals that I SHOULD have never posted the question. Now, however, I'm a certified marked and hunted renegade!
Spunk
11th Aug 2004, 09:01
Come on PA42, you are fooling all of us.:D The way you are writing you've got to be a lawyer. :D :D :D