Chopper crash in Pennsylvania

[rotornut]

Canadian reality TV crew crashes in helicopter - TV - Toronto.com (http://www.toronto.com/article/683595?bn=1)

INDIANA, PA. — Authorities in western Pennsylvania say a helicopter carrying a reality TV crew who were reportedly Canadians crashed near Indiana University of Pennsylvania, but no fatalities have been reported.
A total of four people were apparently on board.
U.S. Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Jim Peters says one of the three passengers, who are all Canadian, walked away but the others on board were injured.
One is in critical condition while another is in serious condition.
The condition of the other person is unknown.
A spokeswoman for Allegheny General Hospital in Pittsburgh confirmed the pilot had been taken there but declined to release information about his condition.
The helicopter went down shortly after 8:30 p.m. Saturday between two apartment buildings, glancing off one of them and landing upside-down.
Officials say no one on the ground was injured.
The Indiana Gazette said the film crew had been following borough officers for Campus PD, a show filmed in the style of COPS.
University spokeswoman Michelle Fryling said the university was not involved in the filming. She said two students had asked for temporary housing.

[Gordy]

Was wondering how long this one would take to hit rotorheads.....

More Here (http://www.wtae.com/r/27733274/detail.html)

http://www.wtae.com/2011/0501/27734239_640X361.jpg

[Helinut]

Best wishes to all the injured who I hope make a full recovery.

When you look at the extra info, the helicopter seems to be a R44. The damage to the cabin seems pretty substantial. The expression "lawn dart" springs to mind.

Can anyone explain a couple of points. The media talk about it being a "private" aircraft. However, it is being flown for footage for a Canadian Reality TV show. If it was in the UK, this would suggest the flight was at least "aerial work" if not public transport (depending upon whether the people onboard were employed by the operator or not).

Can anyone explain how, within the USA system, it can be a "private" helicopter but doing probably commercial work. Perhaps it can't (legally)?

It may be the media report is cobblers. They kept talking about the propeller breaking up, so they are not aviation specialists ........ :rolleyes:

[RJ Kanary]

This link should fill in some of the blanks.

ASN Aircraft accident 30-APR-2011 Robinson R44 Raven II N445AB (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=122034)

RJ

[birrddog]

Ownership of the aircraft does not imply the nature of the work it can perform in FAA land; it has to do what part it was operated under eg 91 or 135.

I would imagine without looking into the details Of this it could have been part 91 (within 25miles of airfield) and a valid cpl would suffice for a revenue flight.


There may be other options too though Gordy or the like could fill us in.

[Gordy]

Basically for a photo flight, which this was, you can do this under part 91. The only requirement would be to have a commercial pilot license, and the aircraft would need to have a 100 hour inspection---both because it would be for "compensation or hire".

There is no requirement for it to be within 25nm---that is only for non-stop sight seeing flights. It can be any distance as long as there is no landing other than the airport of departure---otherwise it would need to be done under part 135 (air carrier).

Applicable rules are 14 CFR 119.1(e)(4)(iii) (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/6ED75326FA829948862572820066A936?OpenDocument)

[Helinut]

I can't believe it could be so simple, but then I am formed by me European experience. Thanks

[Shawn Coyle]

The FAA mandate is to have the minimum rules necessary for safety.
While there are some things in the European way of doing things that might contribute to safety, there are a lot of rules that just seem to be rules, and have no real impact on overall levels of safety.

[mickjoebill]

Update.
The cameraman died of his injuries three weeks after this crash.

"Witnesses said the helicopter was following Indiana Borough officers to capture a traffic stop at South Seventh and Locust streets. The helicopter circled and dropped from the sky before its rotor tore through an apartment of an IUP student, who was not injured, witnesses said."

4 people on board plus camera kit chasing cop cars responding to calls at night. Ughh

I feels like that aside from war photography filming from side doors of helicopters is the next highest cause of accidental death of cameramen.


Mickjoebill

[Epiphany]

4 people on board plus camera kit chasing cop cars responding to calls at night. Ughh

Sometimes the rules are made for a reason.

[Gordy]

Sometimes the rules are made for a reason.

Technically there is no rule against it.

Pure speculation...but I am guessing this was a "low cost " production as they were using an R-44 instead of something bigger. Then to take the speculation further---the pilot was low time and allowed the production team to push him into allowing "others" along for the ride....

[JimBall]

Gordy "something bigger" doesn't translate to a safer flight. It's about power to weight ratio and performance. Yes - a B3+ would be great. An AS355F1 maybe not so great. A 206 - ugh.
Facts appear to be that this was an overloaded aircraft. It was overloaded because the pilot allowed it to be. It was even more overloaded given the flight conditions it was being put into.
The production company involved have now put in place a rigid H&S routine for helicopter bookings.
Of course that doesn't mean that they will get the right pilots in the future. But it ticks a box.
C'est la vie. C'est la mort.

[Gordy]

"something bigger" doesn't translate to a safer flight. It's about power to weight ratio and performance.

Power to weight ratio yes. And the fact that certainly on this side of the pond most filming is done with a jetranger or Astar using either Tyler or wescam mounts.

[mickjoebill]

Gordy "something bigger" doesn't translate to a safer flight. It's about power to weight ratio and performance. Yes - a B3+ would be great. An AS355F1 maybe not so great. A 206 - ugh.

We know that filming missions have a their own set of pressures and that risk management needs to be fluid because the mission can quickly change from being a few wide shots at 1000 feet to into tracking a car at low level or the planned one passenger becomes a (must have) two.
Then there is choice of aircraft, choose the the cheap R44 5 mins flight from the location or the expensive turbine one hour away?

I know from experience that even uber large TV or film productions tend to be relient on the advice of the local helicopter company, which may only have a single aircraft type on offer, as to the choice of aircraft.

Ideally an aerial coordinator or at least an aerial consultant should be engaged by a production team to run a shoot in general and advise on the tradeoffs between the available options. But production managers tend to trust aviation companies who offer advice for free!

Whilst many production companies have their own aerial filming guides this usually is just an insurance and pilot competency check and includes zilch on assessing overall suitability of a particular helicopter and any tradeoffs between payload and the range of shots that can be flown.

Id love to see a guide that translates performance/payload into safety margins and "shot gathering" ability for the common types of helicopter.

The matrix could then include min speeds related to shooting hand held or with stabilised mounts, large and small.

If we could write a guide with a risk matrix it could be used by camera crews, pilots and production teams to help communicate the right size payload for the mission and also reference this to minimum speeds, OGE capability and rate of climb so the production team has a better understanding of what shots they can and cant do.

Whilst the highest number of incidents of filming accidents involve low budget, doors off filming/photography there is also need for better understanding of the flight characteristics of typical helicopters when using stabilsed mounts too.

Recent 2010-2011 filming/photo shoot prangs
206 with with a stabilised nose mount with 4 POB, Spain.
AS355 long distance hot and low shooting with a side mount, Australia
Pennsylvania, R44 4 pob,side door, at night chasing cop cars over a university campus.
Pikes Peak AS355 F1 14000ft 4 pob plus nose camera and other electronic kit. Sept 2010
Lookout Mountain 4 POB R44 May 2011(video and stills crew) side doors.
Schweizer 269c side door low and slow over forest. Asheville, North Carolina June 2010
R22 South Brunswick Dayton July 21 2011 Circled then crashed. Video and stills.
Sao Paulo Feb 10th AS350 cineflex nose mount.
Belgium EC120 surveillance & photo mission Oct 18 2011
Belarus AS355NP Oct 20 2011

Some recent near misses
2010 Sept, "Real Steel" AS350 with a Spacecam cut a wire and power to a Michigan town.
An "action" Helicopter in a scene from movie "I Alex Cross" clipped a light pole in Sept 2011

Mickjoebill

[JimBall]

MJB: We're thinking the same way. But any matrix or RA is only as good as the person operating the aircraft. It astounds me that (in Europe) there is no proper training for aerial filming or photography pilots.
We are heading towards the EASA SPO for aerial work - and we will apparently be consulted on its content. This will be our chance to make the case for specialist training. And I also think that gyro operators and handheld camera operators should be regarded as "crew" because they are vital to the safe operation of the flight - and they should therefore receive CRM training as well as a short course covering the relevant aspects of the principles of flight.

[Gordy]

mickjoebill

I know from experience that even uber large TV or film productions tend to be relient on the advice of the local helicopter company, which may only have a single aircraft type on offer, as to the choice of aircraft.

Have to disagree---most "uber" production companies in the US will ONLY fly with you if you have an FAA approved Motion Picture Manual. Even then they want SAG carded pilots. Even then a lot of the big directors out there will only fly with certain "known industry" pilots. Not too many of those types of companies around---in fact, most times I bring up the subject of "FAA approved Motion Picture Manuals" I get the deer in the headlight look.

[mickjoebill]

Have to disagree---most "uber" production companies in the US will ONLY fly with you if you have an FAA approved Motion Picture Manual. Even then they want SAG carded pilots. Even then a lot of the big directors out there will only fly with certain "known industry" pilots. Not too many of those types of companies around---in fact, most times I bring up the subject of "FAA approved Motion Picture Manuals" I get the deer in the headlight look.

Some US uber productions are not shot in the US and they do not all use or know of the FAA motion picture manual.

The "Real Steel" shoot was presumably run according to the motion Picture Manual, (SAG pilot) yet they hit a wire and knocked out power to a town. Accidents happen. How is such an incident anyalysed by SAG to improve future aerial filming safety? Very large budget productions have fearsome contracts that attempt to keep tight any information about the shoot, this can give the impression that incidents are kept under wraps. Has anyone seen a FAA or NTSB report on this incident or is it too minor to show up on the database?


But any matrix or RA is only as good as the person operating the aircraft. It astounds me that (in Europe) there is no proper training for aerial filming or photography pilots.

In some cases the matrix would help crew or production narrow down the choices before they book the aircraft and pilot.


We are heading towards the EASA SPO for aerial work - and we will apparently be consulted on its content. This will be our chance to make the case for specialist training.

Long overdue and more useful than pprune rants:)

And I also think that gyro operators and handheld camera operators should be regarded as "crew" because they are vital to the safe operation of the flight - and they should therefore receive CRM training as well as a short course covering the relevant aspects of the principles of flight.

The photographer injured in the Dayton crash was, according to reports, also shooting video. She is a very experienced aerial still photographer. There were pictures of a damaged lightweight video camera and stills camera with a neck strap, adjacent the wreckage.

I think there is a warning for pilots that with the introduction of DSLRs cameras (digital single lens reflex) which now have video capability, that there is an increasing call for still photographers to shoot video as well as stills.

Not necessarily in this case, but photographers may take time to learn how to shoot aerial video, which could cause CRM issues. There is also more scope for kit to accidently foul the controls, which has been the cause of a few incidents over the years.


It is this market segment that has the most accident occurrences and the most fatalities. There have been very few camera operator fatalities when the door is closed (using gyrostabilised cameras) even in accidents where the pilot is fatally injured.

But with the door open the opposite is true, there are more instances of cameraman being fatally injured even though the pilot and others survive.

It is impossible to say categorically that side door is "more dangerous" than the stabilised without knowing total number of flights/hours for each category.




Mickjoebill

[mickjoebill]

Sadley this thread could go on forever if we kept updating it with accidents involving a filming/photography mission. Two this week.

Although this accident occurred 3 years ago the coroners report has only just been released, regarding a R44 crash where the stated cause was the pilot dropping down to 100ft (well below company regs of 500ft min) so his passengers could take pictures of rock art.

Pilot error blamed for fatal chopper crash - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-18/coronial-inquiry-into-fatal-chopper-crash/3577558?section=wa)



Mickjoebill