BBC filming guide & BBC criticised for using ENG helicopters too often (merged)
Thread Starter
BBC guide for filming pilots
Has anyone seen a new BBC guide for filming pilots?
Apparently recent incidents have prompted BBC to create a loss of tail rotor effectiveness "reminder" that producers must give to pilots when filming with cameramen operating from the side.
Although they recognise that there are safer ways of filming without having the door open, it seems a few sheets of A4 is far cheaper!
Is this true? No sign of it on internal BBC Health and Saftey web site...
Mickjoebill
Apparently recent incidents have prompted BBC to create a loss of tail rotor effectiveness "reminder" that producers must give to pilots when filming with cameramen operating from the side.
Although they recognise that there are safer ways of filming without having the door open, it seems a few sheets of A4 is far cheaper!
Is this true? No sign of it on internal BBC Health and Saftey web site...
Mickjoebill
Guest
Posts: n/a
Spent the last two years working for the BBC on vairous contracts, mainly OB's for sport and events with a bit of the news and drama thrown in. Never saw a guide for producers with reference to loss of tail rotor effectivness, however I was asked if I could 'do this or that' with the helicopter to which I had to say no, with a explanation as to why. Producers/directors/ camera people (yes there are lady cameramen) aren't stupid and understand that there are some things you can't do, so as captian of the aircraft just explain to them and fly safely.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,584
Received 442 Likes
on
234 Posts
Since when have the BBC been in a position to give critical flight safety advice to professional pilots?
Next time I fly a BBC camara person I intend to give them a ten page letter on how to produce a good television programme. Luvvie .....
Next time I fly a BBC camara person I intend to give them a ten page letter on how to produce a good television programme. Luvvie .....
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was given a copy a couple of months ago, it was mainly aimed at the production crews to respect the pilots decision about safe manoeuvres while filming.
It was a covering letter with a copy of the relevant AIC (white) about LTE attached.
I will try and find it and post it for you.
It was a covering letter with a copy of the relevant AIC (white) about LTE attached.
I will try and find it and post it for you.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As Billywizz says :
All companies who are on the Beeb's approved list should have got a copy of this "Alert - Aerial Filming - helicopter Incidents"
It was issued by The Director, Occupational Risk Management.
It has been issued because Beeb crews have been involved in 3 serious heli accidents, all with LTE apparantly as a contributory factor, and gives guidelines on What To Look For in your choice of filming pilot.
They also include FODCOM 1/2004 on LTE, and advise Their People to give the Operator a copy of this alert plus the FODCOM at the first planning meeting for any job.
All companies who are on the Beeb's approved list should have got a copy of this "Alert - Aerial Filming - helicopter Incidents"
It was issued by The Director, Occupational Risk Management.
It has been issued because Beeb crews have been involved in 3 serious heli accidents, all with LTE apparantly as a contributory factor, and gives guidelines on What To Look For in your choice of filming pilot.
They also include FODCOM 1/2004 on LTE, and advise Their People to give the Operator a copy of this alert plus the FODCOM at the first planning meeting for any job.
Thread Starter
it was mainly aimed at the production crews to respect the pilots decision about safe manoeuvres while filming.
Something for pilots to use in advance for attempting a low flying unforgiving terrain job in underpowered singles?
Mickjoebill
It has been issued because Beeb crews have been involved in 3 serious heli accidents, all with LTE apparantly as a contributory factor, and gives guidelines on What To Look For in your choice of filming pilot.
Stating the obvious that there is a connection between a pilot having to orientate the aircraft to suit the shot and LTE.
As a camera op who has done hand held, had a LTE incident fortunatley high enough to recover, as well as who has used stabilised gimbals it is obvious that gimbals are the safer way to go for complicated jobs at low level.
Surely the beeb should be encouraging the use of stabilised systems and finding the budget to pay for them.
The BBC owns a gimbal that does sod all as most BBC production departments don\'t know it exists!
There are now about 10? gimbals in the UK.
Wonder if BBC Health and Saftey know this!
Mickjoebill
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "evolution" of this latest piece of paper goes back to 2003 - particularly the May Hadrian's Wall incident which got a lot of coverage because Alan Titchmarsh wasn't on board......he was on the ground being filmed.
By Nov 2003 (at CAA Small Helicopter Safety Forum), the CAA were raising the issue of LTE.And in Jan 04 they issued the FODCOM. One year later, the BBC issued their own version.
This is typical of the strung-out "logic" involved in Health & Safety - 20 months from incident to paper. And the result doesn't change the risks one iota. It just does the usual fudge of making the problem have different ownership.
LTE is stated as a "cause" of these incidents - but that cannot be the truth. As in 99% of all "loss of control" incidents, the pilot must take some of the blame. Whether it's LTE or Vortex Ring or any of the other "beware" areas, someone didn't pay attention or didn't have the right training.
MJB is right - gyro-stabilisation is the solution, preferably a full 360 which gives you best shot/safety ratio. Even a side-mounted gyro is not the answer. And there's no substitute for RELEVANT experience and currency as a filming pilot.
By Nov 2003 (at CAA Small Helicopter Safety Forum), the CAA were raising the issue of LTE.And in Jan 04 they issued the FODCOM. One year later, the BBC issued their own version.
This is typical of the strung-out "logic" involved in Health & Safety - 20 months from incident to paper. And the result doesn't change the risks one iota. It just does the usual fudge of making the problem have different ownership.
LTE is stated as a "cause" of these incidents - but that cannot be the truth. As in 99% of all "loss of control" incidents, the pilot must take some of the blame. Whether it's LTE or Vortex Ring or any of the other "beware" areas, someone didn't pay attention or didn't have the right training.
MJB is right - gyro-stabilisation is the solution, preferably a full 360 which gives you best shot/safety ratio. Even a side-mounted gyro is not the answer. And there's no substitute for RELEVANT experience and currency as a filming pilot.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,584
Received 442 Likes
on
234 Posts
headsethair,
I take it that then you have relevant experience and currency yourself?
I take it that then you have relevant experience and currency yourself?
Thread Starter
Many pilots and cameramen neglect to figure out in advance which is the best side to shoot out from in respect of
wind direction
sun direction
direction of development of the shot (clockwise or counter clockwise).
Perhaps the pilot should be a little more proactive
pointing out limitations of low level flight in a particular orientation.
Mind reading what the production team wants in advance is the biggest challenge.
Mickjoebill
wind direction
sun direction
direction of development of the shot (clockwise or counter clockwise).
Perhaps the pilot should be a little more proactive
pointing out limitations of low level flight in a particular orientation.
Mind reading what the production team wants in advance is the biggest challenge.
Mickjoebill
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ST "I take it that then you have relevant experience and currency yourself?"
I run the company - I don't fly the aircraft. I leave that to ATPL(H)s with at least 4500 h and heavy filming experience.
I run the company - I don't fly the aircraft. I leave that to ATPL(H)s with at least 4500 h and heavy filming experience.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,584
Received 442 Likes
on
234 Posts
Glad to hear that. 
Just intrigued by your profile...
Just intrigued by your profile...
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Gloucestershire
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Headsethair,
Quote: "MJB is right - gyro-stabilisation is the solution, preferably a full 360 which gives you best shot/safety ratio. Even a side-mounted gyro is not the answer. And there's no substitute for RELEVANT experience and currency as a filming pilot."
Just wondering which system will give you 360 degrees of vision?
Quote: "MJB is right - gyro-stabilisation is the solution, preferably a full 360 which gives you best shot/safety ratio. Even a side-mounted gyro is not the answer. And there's no substitute for RELEVANT experience and currency as a filming pilot."
Just wondering which system will give you 360 degrees of vision?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ed, Depending on the angle of the shot. We get really great skid-free bridge shots with our nose-mounted cineflex.
Retractable skids or wheels would obviously be the perfect solution.
Retractable skids or wheels would obviously be the perfect solution.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Gloucestershire
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Headsethair,
OK, next question. When the nice production assistant at the BBC tells you “It’s a drama series and the helicopter shot (as usual) is the last on the list, oh and by the way everything has been shot in Super 16mm so far and your shot will have to match otherwise the director will have a coronary” What do you do with your Cineflex then?
OK, next question. When the nice production assistant at the BBC tells you “It’s a drama series and the helicopter shot (as usual) is the last on the list, oh and by the way everything has been shot in Super 16mm so far and your shot will have to match otherwise the director will have a coronary” What do you do with your Cineflex then?
Then I guess you'd use a Tyler nose mount or splash out for the wescam (35mm). Either way we've been using them for years and getting fantastic results especially for real cameras as opposed plastic cameras......
The Veloceraptor of Lounge Lizards
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: From here the view is lovely
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At a recent production meeting with the BEEB the producer dropped the document on the desk and asked if I could explain what it all meant. It is written with a great deal of common sense if you are a helicopter pilot, but could cause worries for non-aviation person.
It has certainly helped with this particular job as the producer and director are asking sensible questions from the start and not expecting the impossible at the last second.
It has certainly helped with this particular job as the producer and director are asking sensible questions from the start and not expecting the impossible at the last second.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ed: Can you feel me on the hook ? 'cos I know you're there....
In this instance, we would try to persuade them (see below) that there is a better method. If that failed, we would refer them to someone who we know could handle Super 16.
I really don't give a stuff if the director has a coronary - although I might drop him a note to suggest a better diet and lifestyle.
Most high-end digital video can be easily graded in post-production these days to make it look like some other medium. In fact, we did a shoot on digiBeta last year which was matched into Super 16.
The tumbling of the costs for "post" in recent years mean that directors are quite happy to spend some time grading their shots. (More time on bum in edit suite - could be a cause of the coronaries ?)
I find it fascinating that Hollywood is now shooting a lot of its movies on HD video, post-producing on computer and then transferring the final product to 70mm celluloid for distribution.
Talking with John Coyle at Cineflex, he says most of the movie helicopter shots are being done on HD now. We just need another 12 months of "trickle down" effect, another drop in price and size, and HD gyros will become affordable. (Currently $400,000 - I think there's one in the UK at the moment and Arena are due to take delivery of their's later this year).
My point is - if video is good enough for Hollywood, why not for all other moving image output ?
Can I bow out of your baiting now ?
In this instance, we would try to persuade them (see below) that there is a better method. If that failed, we would refer them to someone who we know could handle Super 16.
I really don't give a stuff if the director has a coronary - although I might drop him a note to suggest a better diet and lifestyle.
Most high-end digital video can be easily graded in post-production these days to make it look like some other medium. In fact, we did a shoot on digiBeta last year which was matched into Super 16.
The tumbling of the costs for "post" in recent years mean that directors are quite happy to spend some time grading their shots. (More time on bum in edit suite - could be a cause of the coronaries ?)
I find it fascinating that Hollywood is now shooting a lot of its movies on HD video, post-producing on computer and then transferring the final product to 70mm celluloid for distribution.
Talking with John Coyle at Cineflex, he says most of the movie helicopter shots are being done on HD now. We just need another 12 months of "trickle down" effect, another drop in price and size, and HD gyros will become affordable. (Currently $400,000 - I think there's one in the UK at the moment and Arena are due to take delivery of their's later this year).
My point is - if video is good enough for Hollywood, why not for all other moving image output ?
Can I bow out of your baiting now ?
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roll on HD and the production companies' budgets to pay for it!
There is an education process as well though - I've listened to production crew recently sneering at video "Its only tape" when they're on a 35mm job. There is still an "us and them" about the whole thing which will take time to sort out.
Of course "real men" still do sidemount stuff - it's character building and it has its place for short dynamic cine shots, preferably done in the summer! But if you're using video get behind a gyro ball of some kind, close the doors and turn the heat on.
As to the Health and Safety issue in UK - what a minefield! Does the CAA not regulate us already? Is a second layer of risk assessment appropriate, or useful, or is it just shoulder-sloping for insurance and liability reasons?
However, if the LTE hooplah alerts production companies to the dangers of wanting to stuff talking ballast into the aircraft that's a good thing. A decent aerial co-ordinator on the ground with a radio, fuel onsite, a storeyboard and a clamshell for the director is the way to go.
Lastly, I see MickJoeBill has been shortened by some of you to MJB - not to be confused with MBJ! ..nothing personal MJB but our views may not always co-incide!
There is an education process as well though - I've listened to production crew recently sneering at video "Its only tape" when they're on a 35mm job. There is still an "us and them" about the whole thing which will take time to sort out.
Of course "real men" still do sidemount stuff - it's character building and it has its place for short dynamic cine shots, preferably done in the summer! But if you're using video get behind a gyro ball of some kind, close the doors and turn the heat on.
As to the Health and Safety issue in UK - what a minefield! Does the CAA not regulate us already? Is a second layer of risk assessment appropriate, or useful, or is it just shoulder-sloping for insurance and liability reasons?
However, if the LTE hooplah alerts production companies to the dangers of wanting to stuff talking ballast into the aircraft that's a good thing. A decent aerial co-ordinator on the ground with a radio, fuel onsite, a storeyboard and a clamshell for the director is the way to go.
Lastly, I see MickJoeBill has been shortened by some of you to MJB - not to be confused with MBJ! ..nothing personal MJB but our views may not always co-incide!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MBJ
With you all the way on that
My only modification, when it's possible, is to discourage remote clamshells with radios (it makes them feel remote and out of the loop) and recommend a couple of takes followed by a five minute (rotors stopped) production meeting. In this way you, Mr Director Sir, will have the undivided attention of me, the stunt car driver, and all your attendant luvvies whilst you rip my flying up for a*** paper.
Better still, sir , those five minutes will be "off the clock"!
(BTW, for the full gory details of the LTE incident in question, speak to Mick W - he was the one trying to judge the point of impact and marching smartly in the opposite direction).
JerryG
With you all the way on that
My only modification, when it's possible, is to discourage remote clamshells with radios (it makes them feel remote and out of the loop) and recommend a couple of takes followed by a five minute (rotors stopped) production meeting. In this way you, Mr Director Sir, will have the undivided attention of me, the stunt car driver, and all your attendant luvvies whilst you rip my flying up for a*** paper.
Better still, sir , those five minutes will be "off the clock"!
(BTW, for the full gory details of the LTE incident in question, speak to Mick W - he was the one trying to judge the point of impact and marching smartly in the opposite direction).
JerryG
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This paper was put out because of the misguided conclusion to the Hadrians wall crash.
I say misguided because if you go through the last seconds and the conditions on location and like myself are filming 90% on your flights you will come to the conclusion that you had a inexperienced filming pilot turning down wind at low speed around sloping ground.
The BBC have made ground on having an approved list but only for full BBC productions.
I believe that the company they gave the job was approved but could not do it on the day,so they sub contracted it out to a non approved company.
Many BBC productions are produced by other companies that do not need to use the approved list.
This leads to those companies using anyone they want which I can assure you includes non AOC individuals where the pilot has a PPL(h) which makes a farce of the whole eyewash of BBC approved list.
On the subject of mounts there are many formats that fit the requirements of the production companies.
BBC Digi Beta and 16mm in the main.
Commercials 35mm
Feature films 35mm very rarely HD.
Cheap productions for corporate videos digi beta or even straight foreward high street digi cam.
TV drama mostly film.
There are only a few gyro ball mounts available for film and most budgets can't afford them so you are back to hand held or side mounts etc.
By the way nose mounts are extremely limited and only work on particular shots like following a car.
Yes HD is now on it's way but as far as hollywood is concerned,look at how many jobs will be lost if they drop 35mm.
Getting back to the original thread the best way to resolve this issue is to have some form of filming rating,I'm not suggesting that a flight filming general views at 1500 feet would require a pilot to have a rating but when it gets down to 20 meter excemptions the pilot needs to know what he is about.
I say misguided because if you go through the last seconds and the conditions on location and like myself are filming 90% on your flights you will come to the conclusion that you had a inexperienced filming pilot turning down wind at low speed around sloping ground.
The BBC have made ground on having an approved list but only for full BBC productions.
I believe that the company they gave the job was approved but could not do it on the day,so they sub contracted it out to a non approved company.
Many BBC productions are produced by other companies that do not need to use the approved list.
This leads to those companies using anyone they want which I can assure you includes non AOC individuals where the pilot has a PPL(h) which makes a farce of the whole eyewash of BBC approved list.
On the subject of mounts there are many formats that fit the requirements of the production companies.
BBC Digi Beta and 16mm in the main.
Commercials 35mm
Feature films 35mm very rarely HD.
Cheap productions for corporate videos digi beta or even straight foreward high street digi cam.
TV drama mostly film.
There are only a few gyro ball mounts available for film and most budgets can't afford them so you are back to hand held or side mounts etc.
By the way nose mounts are extremely limited and only work on particular shots like following a car.
Yes HD is now on it's way but as far as hollywood is concerned,look at how many jobs will be lost if they drop 35mm.
Getting back to the original thread the best way to resolve this issue is to have some form of filming rating,I'm not suggesting that a flight filming general views at 1500 feet would require a pilot to have a rating but when it gets down to 20 meter excemptions the pilot needs to know what he is about.