Warning: Beware the Camera

[heliduck]

Cairns chopper pilot 'busted' on You Tube (http://www.cairns.com.au/article/2010/11/17/135655_local-news.html)

A YOUTUBE video is believed to have cost a Cairns helicopter pilot his job and more than $50,000 in court expenses, despite all charges of dangerous flying against him being dropped yesterday.
Tableland man John Quadrio claimed he was stood down by the tour operator he was working for, after the Civil Aviation Safety Authority charged him with eight aviation offences, including reckless and low flying and performing aerobatic manoeuvres.
A passenger in the front seat of the helicopter Mr Quadrio was flying during a tour in October 2008 is believed to have posted the footage online, which has since been removed.
The case was referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions, which dropped all charges against Mr Quadrio yesterday, after expert witnesses could not be sought to give evidence.
Mr Quadrio said he had suffered enormous financial strain with court costs of more than $50,000.
Mr Quadrio said CASA had prosecuted him without any substantial evidence, which saw him being stood down by his boss and suspended from flying for four months.
"I’m upset with the fact that a pilot like myself, who has five-plus years of experience and no background in breaking the law, can be prosecuted on the grounds of a bit of YouTube footage," he said.
"I had eight charges against me for just two turns."
Mr Quadrio said he had an excellent safety record and alleged the passenger who posted the internet video may have been trying to sensationalise his tourist experience.
He claimed the viewpoint from the video, taken on a mobile phone, made the helicopter appear as if it was flying at a steeper angle.
CASA said it could not comment on a case once it had been referred to the DPP.

[Epiphany]

As an EMS pilot I attended an accident on the Gold Coast where another pilot had attempted to impress his tourist passengers. These were the days before mobile phone cameras and the only evidence we could find of wrong doing were 5 dead bodies.

This 'unfortunate' Cairns pilot should consider himself lucky. Maybe he might learn something - even with a whole 5 years flying experience behind him.

[Flying Lawyer]

simondlh Poor bloke, surely he should get his costs back from the CASA.
If this had happened in the UK, he would have been reimbursed expenses reasonably and properly incurred in defending the proceedings. (The payment is usually made from 'central funds'; in exceptional circumstances, a court may order the prosecuting body to pay.)

Epiphany This 'unfortunate' Cairns pilot should consider himself lucky.
Lucky?
According to the press report -
The prosecutor couldn't find a single expert who considered what the pilot did was reckless or low flying or an aerobatic manoeuvre or any other offence. Whether or not that was the reason or only reason, the prosecution eventually withdrew all the charges. It's highly unlikely they would have done so if they had evidence to support their allegations.
It's cost the pilot 50,000 Aus dollars (almost £31,000) to defend himself against the allegations, he's lost his job and he will inevitably suffer damage to his professional reputation despite being acquitted of all charges (as your post illustrates).

That's the sort of 'luck' most people would prefer not to have.

[Epiphany]

If you had seen the video FL then you would change your mind - or being a lawyer possibly not. Is there any such animal as a guilty person these days?

He f*cked up as is paying the price.

[Flying Lawyer]

Epiphany

If the video evidence was as clear as you imply then it's surprising that the prosecution dropped every charge.
It's well known that cameras can distort and give a false impression. That may well have been a factor the prosecutor took into account after the footage had been carefully examined by experts.

http://www.kevinwilley.com/images/educational/telephoto/slide_truck_barn.gif


Is there any such animal as a guilty person these days?Yes, lots of them. I was a barrister for 33 years and spent about half my time prosecuting, more often than not successfully. However, just because someone is charged (or even actually prosecuted) doesn't necessarily mean they are guilty.

- or being a lawyer possibly notThat quip is as silly as if I was to imply that, 'being a helicopter pilot', you possibly lack co-ordination and motor skills.


Whatever the rights or wrongs of this particular incident, the story serves as a useful warning re video cameras.

.

[fencehopper]

Gee, Guilty or not, i would think that CASA's lawers would find the 'expert witness' and get their evidence together before handing it over to the DPP. Guilty or not, the guy should be compensated if only for the reason to make 'skull' wince. I reckon at least 10,000 penalty units in credit and a 'get out of jail card'.
CASA, useless as tits on a bull!
FH

[Epiphany]

Yes FL - lucky. Lucky that he is not facing a manslaughter charge.

I have attended 3 fatal helicopter accidents caused by pilots hooning around trying to impress their fare-paying passengers. Two of those pilots were well-known for that type of flying but continued in the practice. Why? because they had never been fined or lost their jobs because of it.

Maybe another fatal accident has been prevented by CASA at long last doing something positive.

My 'quip' is borne of frustration (shared by many others) who constantly see injustice in the courts dealt by members of the legal profession who are seemingly cocooned from what is happening in the real world.

[Epiphany]

Are you familiar with the term 'Aerobatics' ? I've been flying long enough to know what they look like. Normally prohibited in RFM's and company Operations Manuals.

Those of you who think he has been hard done by will continue to think that. Those of us that think he was a prat will continue to think that.

[Brilliant Stuff]

Epihany, a friendly tip for you, you might want to do some research on Flying Lawyer on this forum and I mean look at his posts before the time you joined and you might find out that he knows rather well what he is talking about.

Yes we are hiding behind our usernames for a degree of anonymity but that does not mean that we have to A be rude and B use the username to make up our opinion use the posts for that.

I felt I had to stand up for Flying Lawyer.

[Epiphany]

BS - Refer to last sentence of my last post.

At no point have I been 'rude' to Flying Lawyer.

[krypton_john]

Epiphany, have you, or have you not, seen the footage?

The CAA have, and they could not find an *expert* who could say it was illegal.

[Epiphany]

Have you read my posts? YES I have seen it and in my opinion as a 10,000 hour helicopter pilot he was performing illegal aerobatics.

CASA were probably well aware that any clever lawyer could say that:

It's well known that cameras can distort and give a false impression.

I have made my point and am now leaving the courtroom.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I know little about CASA, but it has seemed iniquitous in the UK that with CAA prosecutions the expert witness for CAA almost invariably is from within their own staff. Surely this prejudices their independence of evidence? But on the other hand, if CAA can do it, why can't CASA?

Ultimately however, only a court can decide on guilt, until then, they're innocent.

G

[Shell Management]

With all due respect to my learned friend but the idea that

It's well known that cameras can distort and give a false impression.

is just luddite horsesh8t.:ugh:

AAIB/BEA/NTSB have all issued recommendations on introducing crashworthy video crash recorders onto aircraft without FDRs. Are they too stupid to know that "well known" fact?:\

Bell and now Eurocopter are now offering such systems. Have they failed to spot this "well known" flaw in their plans?:}

[topendtorque]

mmm well I have had the experience that the best judge, jury and executioner is the paying public. word of mouth will travel like a wild fire.

i unfortunately had a pilot who was going that quite bit lower etc etc. on set piece tourist work. inside a few days the trade dropped from six to two hours per day. - and took nearly four weeks to slowly crawl back up again.

me and that pilot, well we parted company, eh.

other helicopters around doing the wrong thing would impact on the trade as well.

i had another instance where an unrelated pilot did a very low beat up at the same tourist venue, i got to see the statement that he had made. I said tear it up for god's sake, he's in enough trouble already, - he had detailed his activity down to a few inches above the tourists. "can't" says the solicitor, "its already been submitted". bloody hell, I said, 'plead insanity.'

as others have said the law system knows nought about what should be severely punished in our game. he got off with a warning, couldn't believe it.

[hueyracer]

who has five-plus years of experience


Yeah....hell of a lot of experience....(NOT)

:ugh:

Pilots like this one are the reason why Helicopter pilots are called "unreliable/reckless"(.. whatever......)...

Every pilot that thinks it is necessary to "impress" his passengers with stupid flying earns loosing his licence......

just my 2 ct.

[canterbury crusader]

In my opinion the flying wasn't aerobatic but without a doubt he was performing steep turns with passengers purely for their excitement (not sure if they were screams of excitement or fear) below 200ft (I have also seen CASA's detailed report). I should also note I am not an expert witness or even too sure what I would define as aerobatic manoeuvers.


As for the rest of the charges it should have been a no brainer. Casa will never get more evidence in a case where a crash has not occured than the footage they had and as for not finding an expert witness they cant have tried very hard (his employer would suffice).

To sum up I feel he should have had some action taken against him even if only to deter others from similar actions. As he has not been found guilty he should be entitled to recieve compensation for legal expenses if only to force CASA to show some balls in the future.

His loss of job was due to his employer seeing the footage so should receive nothing for this.

And no I'm not perfect either (see I started a sentence with and). Nor do I dissagree with Epiphany's opinion, I just have my own.

[Ejector]

If he was wrong, CASA should not have pulled out.

Other wise,
CASA should compensate him handsomely for this.

CASA are out of control and incompetent.

[canterbury crusader]

He was wrong AND casa pulled out

[Brian Abraham]

is just luddite horsesh8t

Shell Management telling Flying Lawyer he doesn't know what he's talking about!!!!! SM, you're getting better all the time with the comedy routine, keep at it.

[Unhinged]

Flying Lawyer has quite rightly earnt our respect for his considered opinions over the years in this forum and others.

Epiphany's frustration with the behaviour of this low time pilot is shared by many of us. How many hours qualifies you to fly steep turns at low level over water with paying passengers on board ?

They're both right, but the sentiment of this thread should be "beware dangerous overconfidence" rather than "beware the camera".

There is more to this story than is set out in the first post of this thread, and just because CASA couldn't find the expert they wanted, it doesn't mean that the flying didn't happen. As painful as the $50,000 was, it might well have saved more than one life down the track.

[Brilliant Stuff]

Thanks for your last post Unhinged.:ok:

[Ejector]

If he was wrong, CASA should not have pulled out.
Other wise,
CASA should compensate him handsomely for this.
CASA are out of control and incompetent.

[SIZE="4"]He was wrong AND casa pulled out


Well, more than likely a true comment above in purple, I am not in a position to argue either way about right and wrongs, except some staff members of CASA have made nothing more than accusation against this person who cost him massively, while the CASA staff billed me who paid for it then just said, nope, I am pulling out now when push has come to shove.

You paid for it to !!!!!
If they are going after people who are dangerous, well go after them.

I hope the pilot wins a huge civil case against CASA and the CASA staff involved have to explain under cross examination, who are in my opinion, now beyond responsible doubt, out of control. Many cases now in personal vendeters it appearers. Not sure of the twist in this case though. :ugh:

I am not saying that doing what may appear as steep turns with pax at low level is good.

[oldbeefer]

That video - does the R44 not have a sideways and backwards limit? Even if in limits, flying like that at that height in a SE heli is madness.:=

[Aubrey.]

Agreed, there's certainly a good level of skill there, but possibly not judgment. Imagine if the engine had failed, worse still the R44 had hit the boat!

[Peter-RB]

Hey Epiphany,


You seem to be a very one side thinker, do you have some axe to grind in this case,

I and 99.999999% of the rest of the free and civilised world stand by the Maxim that a man/woman or Heli pilot is innocent until proven guilty,
as this pilots case has been abandoned by an authority who by all accounts dont seem to play fair , it is now almost as though the incident never took place, had the Pilot been as reckless as you are trying to make out , then some quivering wreck of a pax may well have been justified in making a complaint, but as they did no such thing , then why are you getting all red under the collar.

You may have a job that get you into the areas that most others never see, but you also need to widen your views , it will relax your attitude to see that nothing came of what seems to be a sort of vexatious trial by Youtube and a possible desk bound penpusher who felt a little vexed on that day.

Peter R-B
Vfrpilotpb

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

had the Pilot been as reckless as you are trying to make out , then some quivering wreck of a pax may well have been justified in making a complaint, but as they did no such thing , then why are you getting all red under the collar


Sorry Peter but I have to side with Epiphany (on the understanding that the footage did show a degree of 'over-exuberance' - I haven't seen it myself). Just because the pax didn't complain about the pilot's flying doesn't mean that the pilot is innocent - how many pax would know whether a pilot on a pleasure flight was going too far or not? People scream with excitement/nerves on a rollercoaster, but they're safe in the knowledge that they won't come to any harm; whether the helo pax were screaming or not, they would have had no idea that they were potentially quite close to disaster until the aircraft had crashed (just see the appalling tale of the RAF Puma crash at Catterick in 2007).

I can't say for sure whether this pilot was being reckless, but his defence of "I've been flying for over 5 years" doesn't fill me with confidence about his attitude...presumably if he is the innocent victim here, the tour operator will re-instate him without delay...

[MidlandDeltic]

Shell Mgmnt wrotte : "With all due respect to my learned friend but the idea that

Quote:
It's well known that cameras can distort and give a false impression.
is just luddite horsesh8t.:ugh:"

SM, cameras can and do give false impressions. Example from another part of the transport industry.

Residents of an estate were unhappy with a bus service operating through their estate. One resident was a reporter for the local rag. To bolster their case, they got said rags photograper out to take a photo of speeding bus. Phot duly obtained and published, showing blurred bus. I happened to be on the bus concerned, in an official capacity (local authority , investigating the complaints), which was actually doing 10mph at the time. Bus was blurred as the photo was taken at dusk, on a very slow shutter speed off a tripod.

Different focal lengths can also be used to give false impressions (appearance of reduced distance between vehicles, for example).

So yes, the phrase "the camera never lies" is not only misleading, it is just plain wrong.

MD

[Quick Release]

:rolleyes: seems life jackets are optional as well in the R44 footage... always someone getting wrapped up in the moment and forgetting (ignoring) their legal obligations.

[TalkSpike]

YouTube - AIRTIME - Jet Pilot Music Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6nFl21kpaw)

Im sure we have all seen this video before. I didn't watch it again before posting the link however I am sure there is a scene it where the helo rolls inverted. Now do you think the helo rolled inverted or did the camera?

Unless said camera is fixed to the dash of the acft (have not seen it) you will never know, hence no experts could testify, if it was a steep turn or a little extra twist of the wrist holding the camera. And if they were over water you will have no reference to judge the height.

Innocent until proven guilty I say! :ok:

TalkSpike.

[mickjoebill]

There have been a few accidents over the years involving low flying over water whilst filming.

In crashes involving filming helicopters (or aircraft) hitting the water the camera operator has a higher fatality rate than pilot. On two occasions where the aircraft had a benign forced landing in water where all other occupants survived, cameramen have drowned due to inability to release their harness.


There are a few ways of reducing risks when shooting from a side door.

For instance, in respect to the boat video to get a shot of the starboard side of the boat they could have reduced the need for flying backwards by landing and moving the cameraman to the left hand seat.
Also the pilot's forward view, when crabbing to the left, was restricted by the front seat passenger, was he critical to the mission, could he in the back?


Helmets and vest style of life jackets are a help.



Mickjoebill

[Gordy]

For instance, in respect to the boat video to get a shot of the starboard side of the boat they could have reduced the need for flying backwards by landing and moving the cameraman to the left hand seat.

The video posted above was obviously "low budget" as it was handheld cameras vs wescam/tyler/spacecam mounts. Regardless, I am guessing the director wanted a continuous shot around the boat, where one cannot land and switch camera position.

[RNBL]

@Epiphany
Should a loss of license, job and more than $50 000 be considered lucky? - Especially after CASA admits after two years of time wasting that they have no actual evidence or grounds on which to charge the pilot.

In fact after John's lawyer informed CASA that the log book shows that at 12.30 p.m. on 28/9/2008 he was in Cairns preparing to depart for Hastings Reef (arriving at approx 1.15 p.m.), and not at Norman Reef to which CASA claimed the incident occured. CASA then deliberately and vindictively changed their orginal accusation to 'Date: 28 September 2008 Time: approximately 12.30 p.m. Place of flight: at or near Hastings Reef in the State of Queensland' still without conducting any official investigation. And this is just one of many flaws in this case.

[Kharon]

The link below takes you to an article in an Australian 'flying' magazine.

I warn you; it is long and technical. Problem is - I have little faith in "expert" witnesses and even less in my ability to assess the technical aspects of this argument. (Frantic palm trees + me; story worth a beer).

So, I humbly request some professional technical assistance from the 'chopper' fraternity.

Birds? What birds? (http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/news/2011/10/5328/)

Any help with clarity would help greatly.

My bad - apply own advice before opening gob - Sheesh :ugh:

[bvgs]

Your comment re the camera distortion is ridiculous. As a pilot and photographer for over 35 years, we use wide angle lenses to make things look bigger and further away than they are, we use telephoto lenses to make things appear nearer. Perspective can be dramatically altered either deliberately or by accident. Its not the first time I've photographed a garden with a wide angle lens and realised I've made it look like a park, equally I've been asked to take a portrait of a man with a huge nose and had to use a high focal length telephoto so he didn't look like pinocchio! So you are totally wrong..FACT.

[Fareastdriver]

I'm glad that mobile phone cameras weren't in existence when I used to wrack it around a bit.

[mickjoebill]

Although the camera lies it takes quite a bit of dosh to "photo shop" 25/30fps video and even more to do it seamlessly without proper pre-planning.
Access to the original recording is the number one goal to build a defence.


It is possible to analyze a video by tracking horizons and creating a 3d terrain map ect to establish where the camera is in relation to the ground.
Camera phones are relatively easy as they have a fixed focal length although most suffer from rolling shutter artifacts which often distort the image when the camera is wobbled around.


Mickjoebill

[Up-into-the-air]

There is a series of posts by Kharon which make interesting reading. Also, the actual final findings, where there are "lots of CASA personell" at the hearing.


Just read:

http://vocasupport.com/?s=quadrio&submit=Search

Paul Phelan 's latest (http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/467879-paul-phelan-s-latest.html) (http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/misc/multipage.gif 1 (http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/467879-paul-phelan-s-latest.html) 2 (http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/467879-paul-phelan-s-latest-2.html) 3 (http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/467879-paul-phelan-s-latest-3.html) 4 (http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/467879-paul-phelan-s-latest-4.html))
Kharon

[Up-into-the-air]

The following has just turned up:

Quadrio witness used by CASA turns up in Court in Cairns (http://vocasupport.com/quadrio-witness-used-by-casa-turns-up-in-court-in-cairns/)

and another for viewing:

RGu45s1_QPU

and:

CASA witness in Court again in Cairns | Assistance to the Aviation Industry (http://vocasupport.com/casa-witness-in-court-again-in-cairns/)

[hillberg]

Witholding Discovery, Wait till the Court finds out, Good way to jail a Lawyer.