Another Yarrawonga Trike Accident
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Dunnunda
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fatyak, I quoted some text from FAQ « Yarrawonga Flight Training
Aircraft and cameras have been an unhappy combination before now - that little voice in the ear requesting another pass, but lower this time. Not that it's any consolation to the pilot and passenger, but with multiple cameras potentially catching the accident and what went before, this one is less likely to remain a mystery.
By the way, how are trike operators able to use their aircraft in a commercial setting (other than training)?
By the way, how are trike operators able to use their aircraft in a commercial setting (other than training)?
Wake up!
Aircraft and cameras have been an unhappy combination before now - that little voice in the ear requesting another pass, but lower this time. Not that it's any consolation to the pilot and passenger, but with multiple cameras potentially catching the accident and what went before, this one is less likely to remain a mystery.
By the way, how are trike operators able to use their aircraft in a commercial setting (other than training)?
By the way, how are trike operators able to use their aircraft in a commercial setting (other than training)?
Aerial filming jobs clearly push pilots beyond their limit. There is no correlation with level of pilot experience.
Statistically, if you have any kind of reportable incident with a cameraman on board you have a one in three chance of dying.
The influence of incompetent and inexperienced production staff on flight planning and execution is common.
Once airborn, pressure to get the shot and changing goalposts gets one closer to grief.
Deaths and serious injury when shooting hand held are far higher than when using stabilised mounts.
Illegal or inappropriate mounts and harnesses are not uncomon causes.
Camera equipment fouling controls has not been proven but is a smoking gun in a few.
Lack of oversight of the flight is also common, ie one man band operations where poor judgement in planning could have been overruled.
Three professional cameramen killed whilst working in oz in recent years, all through air crashes.
A fourth (non professional) if you include the EC135 crash, where they had been filming, but unclear if they were shooting at time of crash.
Plus three other crashes, one into water and two spins into ground from low level, that were very lucky escapes.
The relationship between aerial filming activity and aircraft crashes is not examined by Worksafe, they rely on air accident reports which apparently do not look into the statistics and underlying factors associated with aerial filming crashes.
Worldwide since year 2000 no cameramen or crew have been killed shooting a day in the life of the most dangerous occupations in the world, like law enforcement, deep sea fishing, diving and lumber jacks.
But over 50 TV crew killed and as many injured at the hands of pilots!
Mickjoebill
If it was for a TV show it was commercial ops, no matter if the pilot was doing it for nothing. If anyone makes money out of the photography down the line CASA will view it as commercial.
But given the nature of this particular TV program and that Police have said there were personnel on the ground, it's likely the camera was shooting ground activities rather than a day in the life of the pilot.
Some related questions
Does news or doc filming of a private pilot on a joy flight dictate that the flight be classified as commercial or aerial work?
If so does oz airlaw make a distinction between TV doc/news, versus an entertainment show?
Does a flight need to be commercial if footage from an unmanned GoPro is used on a TV doc about the pilot?
Answer in theory, is no?
If GoPro points out window and the aerial footage shot is sold, answer to same question is yes?
Mickjoebill
Last edited by mickjoebill; 15th Mar 2016 at 07:23.
Here we go, here we go...again.!!
It has been stated numerous times on prune by others that under the CAA Act CAsA has no head of power to regulate "commerce"
CAsa is (supposed to be0 a "safety" regulator (sic-very sick) As we know.
But there are regs that do just that. ..regulate commerce
r 206 lists commercial ops photograhy is one What type of photography and purpose is not stated. ..so its a grab bag.
27 d ? has ..allowing an a/c to be used for a commercial purpose..eg photography.
CAsAs role is supposedly to ensure that the aircraft is airworthy, the pilot is duly licenced and any flight undertaken is conducted under the appropriate rules VFR or IFR.
If you sell yr gopro viddy post flight..good luck to you..but pray tell WTF has that later remuneration got to do with CAsA and "safety", quite frankly its none of their fn business.
But we live in a Nanny state where bureaurats wish to micro manage yr life, so there you have it. Its a crock of.
There was a chance to change that in 1997 new COOP/Classificaction of Ops Policy,,,but alas CAsA fcuked it all off into nowhere land
CAsa is (supposed to be0 a "safety" regulator (sic-very sick) As we know.
But there are regs that do just that. ..regulate commerce
r 206 lists commercial ops photograhy is one What type of photography and purpose is not stated. ..so its a grab bag.
27 d ? has ..allowing an a/c to be used for a commercial purpose..eg photography.
CAsAs role is supposedly to ensure that the aircraft is airworthy, the pilot is duly licenced and any flight undertaken is conducted under the appropriate rules VFR or IFR.
If you sell yr gopro viddy post flight..good luck to you..but pray tell WTF has that later remuneration got to do with CAsA and "safety", quite frankly its none of their fn business.
But we live in a Nanny state where bureaurats wish to micro manage yr life, so there you have it. Its a crock of.
There was a chance to change that in 1997 new COOP/Classificaction of Ops Policy,,,but alas CAsA fcuked it all off into nowhere land
A report with quotes from a pilot who was on-scene, who had earlier flown four flights of 8 minutes duration, with each contestant.
Amazing Race cameraman dies in plane crash
Mickjoebill
Amazing Race cameraman dies in plane crash
Mickjoebill
It certainly sounds like a private flight (the crash flight) and the contestants did TIF's with a registered operator.
As for whether you can film a TIF for a TV show is anyone's guess.
As for whether you can film a TIF for a TV show is anyone's guess.
A "Trial Introductory Flight" is exactly that... A trial. It could go for 5 minutes or several hours, depending on how much the customer pays.
Not much different to an 8 minute scenic flight in a helicopter I guess... There's no minimums.
Not much different to an 8 minute scenic flight in a helicopter I guess... There's no minimums.
A "Trial Introductory Flight" is exactly that
What is the definition of a trial flight?
How long does the student have to touch the controls for to experience the joy of flight?
I know of TIF's where the customer didn't touch the controls at all.
Is taking photos for a TV show prohibited for RA-Aus commercial operators?
Have you ever seen a reporter say like a Getaway reporter or similar running a story on a trial flight in an RA-Aus aircraft? (I have, more than a few times). How did they get away with that?
So many variables, so many answers...
Of course the fatal flight was a private flight and therefore none of the above is relevant.
How long does the student have to touch the controls for to experience the joy of flight?
I know of TIF's where the customer didn't touch the controls at all.
Is taking photos for a TV show prohibited for RA-Aus commercial operators?
Have you ever seen a reporter say like a Getaway reporter or similar running a story on a trial flight in an RA-Aus aircraft? (I have, more than a few times). How did they get away with that?
So many variables, so many answers...
Of course the fatal flight was a private flight and therefore none of the above is relevant.
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Dunnunda
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a TIF is not to experience the joy of flight; it is a flying lesson.
95.55 4.1(a) says that an RA-Aus aircraft can only be used for private ops, or for flight training to obtain a pilot certificate. Any flying lesson to obtain a pilot certificate where the student doesn't touch the controls should result in the instructor getting some remedial instruction.
As for private ops, CAR s2 says:
(iv) aerial photography where no remuneration is received by the pilot or the owner of the aircraft or by any person or organisation on whose behalf the photography is conducted;
...
shall be taken to be employed in private operations.
So the Getaway reporter running a story on a TIF where they receive some instruction is completely legal; it is not a private op (as long as the training is for a pilot cert)
if you take photographs for yourself, then transfer copyright to your spouse, and they sell it (ie the photos are not taken on their behalf), is that still a private op?
95.55 4.1(a) says that an RA-Aus aircraft can only be used for private ops, or for flight training to obtain a pilot certificate. Any flying lesson to obtain a pilot certificate where the student doesn't touch the controls should result in the instructor getting some remedial instruction.
As for private ops, CAR s2 says:
(iv) aerial photography where no remuneration is received by the pilot or the owner of the aircraft or by any person or organisation on whose behalf the photography is conducted;
...
shall be taken to be employed in private operations.
So the Getaway reporter running a story on a TIF where they receive some instruction is completely legal; it is not a private op (as long as the training is for a pilot cert)
if you take photographs for yourself, then transfer copyright to your spouse, and they sell it (ie the photos are not taken on their behalf), is that still a private op?
PS I was very specific to say the joy "of" flight to imply that it wasn't a "Joy Flight." There's a Warbird operator also advertising in this way.
The current regs, based on if pilot is remunerated, do little to address the underlying causes of aerial filming prangs in GA.
The current regs do encourage the use of commercial, public transport aircraft maintained to a higher level than private. This is a good thing, given the amount of low and slow flying that occurs. Also good as there is more likelyhood the pilot is overseen by others who have skin in the game.
John Driftmier, a director-cameraman who was killed shooting air to ground scenic shots for the series "Dangerous Flights". John went up in gusty weather in a Aeroprakt A22 piloted by the manager of a game reserve in Africa.
Numerous more appropriate and capable aircraft, including helicopters, were available at the airfield.
Here is good background reading about film and TV H&S written by the John's brother.
http://www.thestoryboard.ca/one-year...-speak-safety/
If you read the article you'll realise the issues of pilots becoming part of a TV production. In the survey, crews acknowledge that dangerous situations are allowed to arise, although there are very few crew killed on set whilst on the ground. Worldwide only a few were reported in the last decade and this includes road accidents driving to and from location after long days.
But over 50 crew killed in the air, along with around 40 pilots since 2000.
The nature of filming sometimes takes us to the edge, where self preservation kicks in. A crew watch each other's backs.
Cameramen, who may well be complicit in creating the hazards and gotchas, relinquish the option to duck or dodge the bullet when airborn.
Mickjoebill
The current regs do encourage the use of commercial, public transport aircraft maintained to a higher level than private. This is a good thing, given the amount of low and slow flying that occurs. Also good as there is more likelyhood the pilot is overseen by others who have skin in the game.
John Driftmier, a director-cameraman who was killed shooting air to ground scenic shots for the series "Dangerous Flights". John went up in gusty weather in a Aeroprakt A22 piloted by the manager of a game reserve in Africa.
Numerous more appropriate and capable aircraft, including helicopters, were available at the airfield.
Here is good background reading about film and TV H&S written by the John's brother.
http://www.thestoryboard.ca/one-year...-speak-safety/
If you read the article you'll realise the issues of pilots becoming part of a TV production. In the survey, crews acknowledge that dangerous situations are allowed to arise, although there are very few crew killed on set whilst on the ground. Worldwide only a few were reported in the last decade and this includes road accidents driving to and from location after long days.
But over 50 crew killed in the air, along with around 40 pilots since 2000.
The nature of filming sometimes takes us to the edge, where self preservation kicks in. A crew watch each other's backs.
Cameramen, who may well be complicit in creating the hazards and gotchas, relinquish the option to duck or dodge the bullet when airborn.
Mickjoebill
Last edited by mickjoebill; 19th Mar 2016 at 02:53.
I have a best mate who is a cameraman. He and his best cameraman mate made a pact some years ago when they both had just had kids that they would stop doing stupid aviation stuff
Simon was supposed to do the Jervis Bay shoot in a Squirrel. When told that the Squirrel was unavailable and that the Andrew was going to use his own R44, Simon refused to continue the job.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r/ao-2012-021/
Simon was supposed to do the Jervis Bay shoot in a Squirrel. When told that the Squirrel was unavailable and that the Andrew was going to use his own R44, Simon refused to continue the job.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r/ao-2012-021/