Flying technique for aerial photography

[damo1089]

Hi.

I was wondering if anyone could shed light on the best way to fly for a passenger wishing to do professional aerial photography in a 172. They obviously don't have the precision and viewing angle potential one could get from a helicopter, and the photographable area would be quite small due to the wing strut. It might not even be a practical aircraft to do it in. Hence this post I suppose :)

[osmosis]

I recall listening to a presentation on aerial photography by an operator out of Moorabbin. From memory, they used a larger twin engined a/c with the camera mounted on some sort of rail system and shot through the floor. When it was time to take the shot the camera quickly but very briefly moved forward on some sort of sliding system in an attempt to compensate the forward speed of the a/c. Allowed for some very clear shots as I recall.

But that is a long way from hanging out the door of a 172.

[Piano Man]

Make sure the windows are clean and try and give yourself as much movement as (safely) possible. Use a constant shutter so you can take three or four of the same photo (you never know which will turn out best) :ok:

[knox]

I've done some aerial photog flying before, so I maybe able to help.
Some more info would be useful though.
Whats the intended subject of photo-shoot? What altitude? Is it air - air or air - ground? ETC.

Feel free to PM me.

Knox.

[startingout]

When I started a few years back now I was put into some photo flying. Listen to what the camera man says about positioning and you cannot go wrong. Most of the time the best way is to push in some rudder to get the strut out of the way of the camera... Watch for wingtip getting in their shot though.

[PilotInPink]

I've done a fair amount of aerial photography flying in a 172 recently.

As far as the aircraft configuration is concerned, we take the latch/strut off the window. As long as the photographer is careful they can open it up in flight and it stays open parallel to the wing. Photos are quite easily taken by keeping the camera pointed just ahead of or behind the wing strut. The photographers I fly with have never mentioned having a problem with the strut.

As for flying the aircraft, I normally extend 10 degrees of flap- enough to slow you down a bit, but not enough to get in the way of a picture.

Taking photos of subects on flat ground is relatively simple- fly straight and level. However when the subject is higher such as including a hill in a scenic shot or an air-to-air shot the wing itself can sometimes be in the way. I was always told not to, but in these cases I fly with slightly crossed controls- lift the wing with aileron and keep heading in the same direction with opposite rudder. Just don't let your speed get low!

That's how I do it, I'm sure other people will do it differently though :p

[PilotInPink]

Forgot to add, if you're flying with the window open either get the pax to take their headset off completely or just unplug the mic part. Otherwise when they stick their head out the window with the camera you won't be able to hear yourself think let alone listen to a controller.

[Jabawocky]

Sideslip prolonged to get the shot can find you with a quiet engine :eek: at low level.

Not a good look.

Go do some research on the C206 up near Proserpine about 7 years ago.

Don't want to put a bucket of cold water on your ops, but it could kill you in a perfectly serviceable aeroplane

[27/09]

I've done obliques with both a PA28 and a C172 and if it's oblique photos you want, a PA28 with the door off is the only way to go. No wing struts or wheel struts to get in the way, no need for any out of balance flying.

Sitting in the front seat of the PA28 puts you just in line with the leading edge of the wing and flying a nice gentle arc past your subject gives the photographer an excellent field of view.

AMI photography were based out of Christchurch I think, many years ago, all they did was oblique photos of farms and farm homesteads, all they ever used was a PA28.

If it's verticals you want then any aircraft with a hatch in the floor will do.

Edit: remembered name of operator.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Why not just use a 172 with a door off STC?

Simple.

[Checkboard]

.. and of course you need to comply with:


Commercial purposes (Act, s 27 (9))

(1) For the purposes of subsection 27 (9) of the Act, the following commercial purposes are prescribed:

(a) aerial work purposes, being purposes of the following kinds (except when carried out by means of a UAV):
...
(iv) aerial photography;
...
;)

[27/09]

Why not just use a 172 with a door off STC?

Because removing the door on a C172 doesn't get rid of the wing struts and wheel struts that get in the way nor the wing which also tends to obscure the view since the best shots are often to be made while flying an arc around the subject.

Checkboard makes some good points. Not sure if you intend to do this commercially or privately.

[Blueyonda]

There was another thread running here suggesting that rule was not meant for hand held cameras but belly mounted ones. The interpretation got lost in the transfer from ANR's/ ANO's to CAR's.

[Aerodynamisist]

In the USA the EAA use a 210 with the baggage door removed for air to air The camera man lies down in the back shoots out the door.

to use this method you would have to check weather it is permissible to fly with the baggage door removed, and also have the camera man return to his seat for take off landing and any flight below 1000'

[Checkboard]

When I was a CPL in OZ it used to specify photographs taken at an angle of less than 45º to the vertical.

Dunno where it says that anymore.

[damo1089]

Wow lots of useful replies :) thanks! I comply with the CARs so it's all good.

[aroa]

Photography.
Quote from the court case, by a prosecutor, not under oath.

"No person can take an aerial photograph from an aeroplane in Australia
without an AOC or a CPL" Its bull**** of course.

Or you could be Dick Smith in his helicopter.!! (See.! CASA : no balls)

That bastard, "bad law", "buggers muddle" Reg 206 lists, as a commercial operation..Photography.:eek:
It does not state why you do it or how you do it, or what the photography is to be used for... if there is money involved, then it is unsafe and illegal.
If there is NO money involved then it quite safe and legal.
Que??? Any safety case validity for the reg??? Sorry..there isnt one.!!
But dont let that stop the regulatory loonies from being allowed out of the asylum.

And CASA can do you twice. Reg 206. No CPL, no AOC
27(9) allowing an aircraft to be used for a commercial purpose.

And CASA is a "safety" regulator specifically and under the Civil Aviation Act
NOT a commercial regulator. But it is, and does control commerce, illegally.

The original poster wants to fly for a professional photographer so money is involved somewhere along the line. SO ...WATCH OUT.
Lots of zealots out there, looking for brownie points and thus saving the world from falling aeroplanes.:E

There's plenty of books about for info on the technical side of aerial photography.

FYI... osmosis.. the fixed vertical mapping cameras have the techo to dial in the flight speed, camera and film parameters, and during exposure the film moves in concert with the image movement. In earlier cameras you were limited to film speed/exposure and aircraft speed. High res aerial film is normally very slow. If you were down low, you had to fly slow.:ok:
With IMC/Image Movement Compensation...that didnt apply.

Damo...just dont crash into a schoolhouse... CASA are very big on that as an occurrence during aerial photography!. (their quote)
They are so full of it they say anything in the name of "safety" :mad::mad:

[aroa]

second time around was 27a or somesuch... commercial use.

Fabulous logic dont you think, that a professional photographer making money doing professional photography using his aeroplane is somehow unsafe.

And that dear people, is why GA is fcuked today...and has been for years.:{

[Horatio Leafblower]

the fixed vertical mapping cameras have the techo to dial in the flight speed, camera and film parameters, and during exposure the film moves in concert with the image movement.

...you still use FILM??? :eek:

[compressor stall]

Several years ago, I designed an under floor aerial camera system involving a standard off the shelf DSLR, GPS leads, a GPS and a small commercially available box that the pilot could control the frame rate etc depending on the speed/altitude and overlap. The Camera cost about $2K, and the rest of the parts sub $1k. CAR35 design, however :mad:

As for techniques, think light, think sun angle. Discuss this with your photographer. The perfect angle is nothing without the right light. Can you do prolonged sideslip to get the wing somewhat out of the way in your 172?

What sort of shots is he looking for? Ultra wide angle or zoomed in cropped shots? The latter is fine; the former, well he's in trouble in a 172 :)

Also, consider the time of day, particularly in summer. Dawn and dusk offer smoother conditions, and more diffuse light (as it's coming through more atmosphere) but this needs to be offset with any of higher ISO, wider aperture or slower shutter speeds but new technology seems to be overcoming this in leaps and bounds.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

I tested a gyro stabilised unit that attached to the strut of a 172.
Seemed to work ok.

[52 North]

Don't wish to hijack the thread but I would appreciate any info on the following, I have been asked to do some aerial photos of a friend's property development near Rugby in England, he will be paying me for the photos.

Can I hire a 172 and an instructor from a school or do I need to go to an operator with an AOC as I will be a passenger?

Many thanks for any info

52N

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

This is an Australian forum.
Different rules.

[aroa]

Blue y. Never, ever, heard of, or read ANYTHING about any difference in the gear,... hand held, small, belly mounted, large, the FN reg just says Photography! :E :E And has done for decades. There were changes proposed many years ago, some finally fell off the CASA web site in 2003, initiated in 1998 ?, still have some paper work in the archive.

But like so much of the "progress" proposed by the confuseyoulator, it just doesnt happen. So much time and effort expended for no results at all, at great cost to the hapless taxpayer.
Ops normal for Fort Fumble, I'm afraid.

Horatio lb...Yep, film still on the go. The good 'old' aerial cameras are a lot cheaper than some of the latest hi- techo stuff that costs millions.
The hi res processed negs are scanned at 12 microns or whatever, and all put onto a hard drive which goes into the computer, put up onto the screen in pairs... and voila! The guy with the 3D glasses can get mapping from there.
And the stitched together pics made into a mosaics, photomaps, whatever
There are small format digital mapping cameras available... rather exxy for 30
mps and etc.... but even the shop stuff is catching up fast. :ok:
18mp &1100$ but the lens has to be calibrated/know distortions, for mapping.
Its fascinating to see the resolution on Google Earth that we can look at.
The military stuff must be beyond amazing.

[Seagull V]

Some hints for taking oblique photos from high wing aircraft e.g. C172 –

Window-open ops as described by PilotInPink above are generally sufficient for most photo shoots, However, on the majority of Cessnas of my acquaintance only the pilot side widow is open-able. This means that the photographer must sit in the pilot’s seat. Therefore it is prudent to be checked out for flying from the right seat.

Flying from the RHS is no big deal but it is sufficiently different to make a check out worthwhile. The aircraft owner/operator may have some opinions about and requirements for flying from the RHS. Having the photographer sitting in the back seat, leaning past the pilot is not a good way to take photos, even if you are good friends.

Door-off ops are OK but generally an overkill for most photo sorties. Usually only required for the really serious pro photographers. For door-off ops the aircraft must have a door-off Flight Manual Supplement and a wind deflector (As used for Skydiving) is advisable. Again a check out is worthwhile as there are some differences in performance, handling, noise and wind buffet etc. Aircraft fitted with in-flight opening/closing para doors (looxury I say) are usually only available from Para clubs/schools.

For door-off ops the photographer should wear a securely anchored personal restraint harness in addition to pax seat belts. This might save the poor pilot having to explain how the photographer fell out. For obvious reasons the pilots seat frame is not a good place to secure this harness.

The camera/s and other equipment should also be secured to prevent loss overboard and restrained in such a way that it will not beat the crap out of the aircraft fuselage if dropped. All POB should be dressed appropriately as it can get very cold at times.

If a photo graphing a fixed object on the in a high wing aircraft ground, one technique that alleviates the need to fly out of balance to keep the wing up out of the way is to first find the line of the shot the that the photographer wants . Then circle AWAY from the object. Each time you come around the wing will be nicely up out of the way. There still might need to be a brief period of slipping flight each time around.

When flying with the wing up take care not to get the wheel in the way.

Brief well before flight.

Finally be very wary of the photographer getting his/her feet mixed up in the rudder pedals. There have been a number of fatals caused by the photographer inadvertently stomping a great boot-full of rudder at an inappropriate moment.

[waren9]

Sideslip prolonged to get the shot can find you with a quiet engine http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/eek.gif at low level.The unkind would say that I'm always flying with sideslip. I get round it by keeping the fuel selector on BOTH!;)

[Polonski]

Just remove the window strut and the window will stay open at all speeds, as long as you have about 1500+ RPM. If we needed less power then we would jam something between the window and the door near the hinges (tethered to the inside of the plane of course!) to stop it dropping into view.

I would leave the mic plugged in as I needed instructions from the photographer, sideslipping as needed to remove the strut. Always keep the target in view yourself, just at the level of the lower side of the window opening and it will be in perfect view of your photographer! :ok:

[nojwod]

Many years of aerial photography have taught me there's no hard and fast rules but that taking good oblique photos from a 172, even a 152 isn't hard. The best plane was a Cutlass (?) strutless, and I believe that the C210 and C337 are also strutless and therefore can be worth the additional expense for difficult shots.

Almost all the Cessnas I've employed have had the opening window RHS. One early model 172 didn't, I grabbed a black shroud and shot through the perspex, results were satisfactory but not recommended.

Depending on the subject, I'm happy with a 5 -10 degree bank slowly circling a target for some subjects, for others I specify tracking past the subject, wings level, at 10-15 degrees away to the left of parallel, which gives a fairly long clear view once the strut has cleared the subject.

Taking the door off is a waste of time. To get the benefit you need to poke the camera into the slipstream, and that causes all sorts of blurring, the bane of all aerial shots. The strut and wheel or spat also tend to creep into the corners of the photos more, perhaps it's because of an expected better field of view, the care factor diminishes? Also, I've given up asking for flap, it causes the window to fall well before an equivalent clean configuration, and if your track is correctly set up you'll have plenty of time to get the shot.

Do as many orbits as are necessary to ace the shot(s), I find very few of my first runs are exactly what I hoped, and a tracking difference as small as 50 metres at 1000' agl makes quite a difference to the shot.

I go for the fastest shutter speed every time. A good SLR should be able to focus properly at wide open aperture, with ISO set to 200 or 400, on a sunny day speeds of 1/2000 should be routine, and even in turbulence most shots will be clear.

Take as many shots as you can each side of your chosen point. Murphy's law is quite clear here, the exact perfect moment will be spoilt by turbulence or slipstream, the photo taken a second before or after will almost certainly be good enough to send Murphy packing.

I have found Google Earth a valuable aid in planning my runs. Setting GE height at 1000' agl, using the oblique function via the scroll wheel, I can get quite a good approximation of what to expect on the day. Once the angle and distance are OK in GE, it's then a simple matter of returning to vertical and plotting the exact position of the aircraft and the desired track, which I then print out and take as a reference.

In all but the clearest air, shooting towards the sun will cause haze to become much more obvious, so plan where possible to have the sun behind you, especially for vistas.

Best of luck in your endeavours, if nothing else you and the line pilot should get to have fun at minimal altitude, so much better than A to B work!

[aroa]

With strut and wheel probs, I mention a T tail Lance or Arrow. From the rear luggage door (removed) you have an 90 degree unobstructed view behind the wing.
Once you have decided on yr best angle of subject shot depending on the lighting, plan yr flight path at 45 deg to cross yr required direction of shot. Early morning and late arvo are best for shadows to give things 'shape', as with light about 90 to angle of view.
Having the light behind you, ie direct onto the subject and straight back to the camera gives a flat uninteresting light. Not good.

Practice make perfect. Note what gives you the desired results. Experiment.

Happy snapping.... and flying.:ok:

[Kodachrome]

With regard to private vs commercial ops, sometimes on tv (reality or docos or whatnot) you'll see the images from inflight of, for example, a station aircraft or jump ship, which are private ops.

Now if you see these on TV, does that then not technically make it a commercial operation? Is there some sort of dispensation involved or does CASA not really bother chasing it down?

[Clare Prop]

Checkers the bank angle limitation is in the flight manual supplement with the door off approval. I have these for all my PA28s including baggage door off for the Archer where you can take the back seats out. These days CASA wants to get engineering orders for door off. :*
Stopped doing it years ago because all the photography mobs I dealt with doing aerials of farms were very bad payers. :mad::mad:

[Wallsofchina]

I've taken a few hundred, hiring someone else to fly, in which case:

Brief the pilot to fly the aircraft (comply with steps, heights, turns within the AC capacity etc. and where a shot is missed, fly a circle and come on to it again.

That gives an understanding between photographer and pilot, so both can work to the best efficiency.

Open the window which will float up to 90 degrees as others have said.

Use as small camera, with a short wrist cable, hold on to it with both hands like grim death.

Use the front window surround as LH Hand support, turn the camera to face the direction of travel, angle it down and "fly on" to the shot. You'll get great crisp shots with no prop or strut if you get it right.

There's a low pressure area close to the skin, so if you keep the camera in close it's a lot more relaxing, and you'll be further into the cabin, so no problems talking to the pilot.

[mickjoebill]

Ensure that you are legal.

Still pictures from fixed wing is one thing... but motion picture work ie video puts extra demands on the pilot. Most DSLRs shoot video so make sure before you take off, if the photographer want to turn into a cameraman mid flight...

The issues are low and slow to keep the shot wide and steady. Also trying to do a perfect orbit despite a wind and slide slipping near the stall.

Excluding war zones, aerial filming kills more cameramen than all other filming activities combined. The pilot usually doesn't come out without a scratch either... two professional cameramen killed in fixed wings this year.. along with their pilots.

Home made harnesses have caused the death of at least three aerial cameramen following a controlled ditching, where all others survived, the cameramen have drowned.



Mickjoebill