Dangerous?
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 201
Likes: 9
From: Fareham
Dangerous?
I only seem to post questions on this bit of the forum when I am at Olympic events. This year it is the Test Regatta for the Olympic games in Qingdao, China.
Today we had an R44 flying round the marina over both the land and the water at slow speed (probably less than 30 knots) very low. Perhaps between 100 and 200 feet - low enough that the small 'R44' on the side was readable. There was a TV cameraman filming from the left skids. No floats.
Am I right to assume (as a plank flyer) that if the donkey quits or pretty much any other misfortune was to occur, the whole kit and caboodle would land up at a point roughly below where the misfortune occured?
Clearly not quite within CAA regulations but is it actually dangerous?
Today we had an R44 flying round the marina over both the land and the water at slow speed (probably less than 30 knots) very low. Perhaps between 100 and 200 feet - low enough that the small 'R44' on the side was readable. There was a TV cameraman filming from the left skids. No floats.
Am I right to assume (as a plank flyer) that if the donkey quits or pretty much any other misfortune was to occur, the whole kit and caboodle would land up at a point roughly below where the misfortune occured?
Clearly not quite within CAA regulations but is it actually dangerous?
Joined: Dec 2005
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 4,973
Likes: 326
From: Hong Kong
100 feet is not that low - unusual flight envelopes are what helicopters were designed for - when filming boats, 5 - 10 feet would not be unusual; on powerlines you may be looking at 1 - 3 feet from the lines. You can do it all day long but you have to be on your toes, and obviously if the engine quits you're f**ked.
You're right to assume that you'd be going straight down in that situation - but you can fit into a much smaller place. Personally if i've absolutely GOT to crash into someone's back garden - i'd rather be able to do it at 0 kts than 60kts!
In a helicopter at 100 feet you're much safer going faster - at 120kts in a 44 you can lose the engine and climb 3 or 400 feet in autorotation which gives you a lot more options.
You're right to assume that you'd be going straight down in that situation - but you can fit into a much smaller place. Personally if i've absolutely GOT to crash into someone's back garden - i'd rather be able to do it at 0 kts than 60kts!
In a helicopter at 100 feet you're much safer going faster - at 120kts in a 44 you can lose the engine and climb 3 or 400 feet in autorotation which gives you a lot more options.
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,937
Likes: 28
From: UK/OZ
Not disagreeing with previuos posters but there are safer ways to film by using a stabilsed camera bolted to the exterior.
The issue with filming out a side door is that once airborn the helicopter often HAS to fly in a particular direction or orientation to get the shot, regardless of wind direction.
Loss of TRE is a recurring theme in accidents involving low level filming with cameramen shooting out of the door.
As exhilarating as hanging out the door is and sometimes it is necessary to get a particular "look", it is far safer to be tucked up inside the airframe with the aircraft oriented toward favourable wind direction, especially when flying at low level in a single without floats.
On a side note, one wonders if the cameraman has a proper harness.
The cameraman who shot the movie "Blair Witch Project' was killed not so long ago when the single engine fixed wing he was in filming at low level crashed/force landed into water. He drowned because he couldn't release his home made harness and also became tangled in the straps keeping the camera secure.
The pilot and director survived.
Take my hat off to Tour de Frog aerial team, AS355 N with two stabilised cameras, one for wide scenic shots one for closeups.
Less pressure on pilot.
Way to go for the big event with lots of spectators about!
Mickjoebill
The issue with filming out a side door is that once airborn the helicopter often HAS to fly in a particular direction or orientation to get the shot, regardless of wind direction.
Loss of TRE is a recurring theme in accidents involving low level filming with cameramen shooting out of the door.
As exhilarating as hanging out the door is and sometimes it is necessary to get a particular "look", it is far safer to be tucked up inside the airframe with the aircraft oriented toward favourable wind direction, especially when flying at low level in a single without floats.
On a side note, one wonders if the cameraman has a proper harness.
The cameraman who shot the movie "Blair Witch Project' was killed not so long ago when the single engine fixed wing he was in filming at low level crashed/force landed into water. He drowned because he couldn't release his home made harness and also became tangled in the straps keeping the camera secure.
The pilot and director survived.
Take my hat off to Tour de Frog aerial team, AS355 N with two stabilised cameras, one for wide scenic shots one for closeups.
Less pressure on pilot.
Way to go for the big event with lots of spectators about!
Mickjoebill
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
From: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Ahh but MJB....(!)
What about the fact that the Tour de France Squizzels spent there whole tim ein the prologue over central London at 900 ft or less in the EGR's and with a rule 18 exemption from the CAA that you cannot do tomorrow!?
(Not knocking the French guys, who (despite getting to Morden before calling) seemed very professional))
What about the fact that the Tour de France Squizzels spent there whole tim ein the prologue over central London at 900 ft or less in the EGR's and with a rule 18 exemption from the CAA that you cannot do tomorrow!?
(Not knocking the French guys, who (despite getting to Morden before calling) seemed very professional))
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
From: Near the Mountains
50/50 Flying
I did powerlines years ago in a JetRanger. I did enjoy it but I used to call it 50/50 flying.
50 miles-an-hour/50 feet, if it quits, you've got a 50/50 shot!
Would I leave the comfort of my IFR-equipped Twin to do it again?
Probably, yes!
50 miles-an-hour/50 feet, if it quits, you've got a 50/50 shot!
Would I leave the comfort of my IFR-equipped Twin to do it again?
Probably, yes!
Joined: Feb 2004
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 70
Likes: 1
From: Home:California. Work: the lower 48
May I just add...?
As someone who "lives" in the H/V curve, I have to smile when I see questions like this. Boys you're not flying fixed wing. You have to accept that to get the job done you're going to be in that zone some of the time. (Respectfully) regarding heliski22's comment about powerlines, I am assuming that you just patrolled them. I work powerlines and the only time I'm doing 50 knots is flying to and from the work location, the rest is 0 knots and 0 to 150 feet. For those of you who are a little twitchy about this, I suggest that you only fly those nice big sexy twins, the ones that can actually fly on one engine.
Be safe.
Be safe.
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 696
Likes: 10
From: Shropshire
As 'I think' MJB was suggesting, it is 'horses for courses' - Modern gyro-stabilised equipment produces stunning results, however the perspective produced by a big lens is very different from those gained by getting 'up close and personal.' If you are down there though, 2 engines, some single engine performance and a set of floats seems a sensible list of precautions!
TeeS
TeeS
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
From: Not here
I have to agree with Airwon, ingDunno about anyone else but when I am hanging out in the Hv curve as most of my career has been the last thing I am worrying about is the donkey quitting, Think doing an efficient and effective SAFE job is utmost on most COMMERCIAL pilots minds. And if you are worrying about mechanical failure maybe you should be doing something else..Taxi Driver, Hairdresser.......maybe not the hairdresser you might cut yourself
SL
SL
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 3
From: Philadelphia PA
The real question is whether the cameraman is fully aware of the risks that are being taken, whether he has the equipment and training to escape from a helicopter that has entered the water for whatever reason, and whether reasonable precautions had been taken to ensure safety.
Precautions such as pop-out floats, etc.
And I thought most countries had regulations for commercial operations that required floats if you were beyond gliding distance from shore....
Precautions such as pop-out floats, etc.
And I thought most countries had regulations for commercial operations that required floats if you were beyond gliding distance from shore....
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 803
Likes: 52
From: Pensacola, Florida
Shawn mused:
Not in the U.S. But then, U.S.-bashers probably think we don't have enough regulations over here...
And I thought most countries had regulations for commercial operations that required floats if you were beyond gliding distance from shore...
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,937
Likes: 28
From: UK/OZ
moral maze
Shawn C raises a valid point when taking crew onboard for non public transport flight.
Who is morally responsible for making it clear to cameramen or others of the saftey aspects of flying over or near water (especially the chilly stuff in Europe) in regard to glide distance and availability or not of 2nd donk, floats or immersion suits.
Also in the moral maze, should pilots inform part time crew they occasionally carry that personal and mortage insurances are most probably excluded from cover when flying in a helicopter?
Mickjoebill
Who is morally responsible for making it clear to cameramen or others of the saftey aspects of flying over or near water (especially the chilly stuff in Europe) in regard to glide distance and availability or not of 2nd donk, floats or immersion suits.
Also in the moral maze, should pilots inform part time crew they occasionally carry that personal and mortage insurances are most probably excluded from cover when flying in a helicopter?
Mickjoebill
