Ulster GP Aerial Filming
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: the right seat
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MJb
Thanks for the clarification. That is what I thought, though I don't think a director has to invoice as they are not paying for their seat.
I looked at the R44 HD thing. The pic on the website seems to have a couple of rails running underneath the machine where the Eng microwave pod sits. Maye they can fix an HD mount there? Am certainly intrigued!
Thanks for the clarification. That is what I thought, though I don't think a director has to invoice as they are not paying for their seat.
I looked at the R44 HD thing. The pic on the website seems to have a couple of rails running underneath the machine where the Eng microwave pod sits. Maye they can fix an HD mount there? Am certainly intrigued!
There is a side bracket for the R44 - which is EASA certified. But can't see the point - why go to all the expense of a gyro mount and then lose at least half the range of the mount ?
There was an HD sidemount being used on an R44 in Florida - but they've stopped because it was a complete nightmare for the pilot and the cameraman.
And RHC have gone and put the wrong camera in their HD spec newscopter. Might be OK for small US tv stations trying to comply with Fed-mandated "must be HD or we'll take your franchise away". But is of very limited use elsewhere in the world.
There was an HD sidemount being used on an R44 in Florida - but they've stopped because it was a complete nightmare for the pilot and the cameraman.
And RHC have gone and put the wrong camera in their HD spec newscopter. Might be OK for small US tv stations trying to comply with Fed-mandated "must be HD or we'll take your franchise away". But is of very limited use elsewhere in the world.
ooked at the R44 HD thing. The pic on the website seems to have a couple of rails running underneath the machine where the Eng microwave pod sits. Maye they can fix an HD mount there? Am certainly intrigued!
Not sure what picture you refer, (the R44 news pictured on the Manx website has registration G-Manx which doesn't tally with CAA register)
The side mount has cross bars and then a cradle.
Not sure if EASA approval is needed to fly with cross bars
Camera hangs out adjacent to the back door at a point directly above the skid.
It is a neat design although most prefer nose mounts, reality is in some parts of the world it may be the only option for occasional work.
There is some confusion with camera brackets, because EASA is allowing certification of the bracket hardware but stipulating that it can't be flown with a payload unless the payload has a separate EASA approved electrical installation for specified cameras.
Some heli companies are buying brackets and are blind/ignorant to the fact they need EASA approval of a particular payload.
Rumour is that the R44 mount will have EASA hardware and electrical installation approval for the common cameras.
Mickjoebill
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From my perspective as on op, no one in the region specialises in aerial filming or owns a stabilised camera system
BC
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: the right seat
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, mislead you there. It is at
http://www.island-images.co.uk/Aircr.../EF041034.html
Can't see quite how you'd fit a camera under and still land though! Maybe you have to inflate the floats first.....
http://www.island-images.co.uk/Aircr.../EF041034.html
Can't see quite how you'd fit a camera under and still land though! Maybe you have to inflate the floats first.....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeenshire
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for all the advice, I was out of town for a couple of days at the Grand Canyon, tempted to take a trip on the EC130, but franly had enough of heli's recently. Stuck to terra frima, machines looked nice though.
Talking to customer about the options.
Talking to customer about the options.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: oceanside
Age: 58
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mickjoebill is correct, we along with tyler have been working with the faa, easa on a new format of stc that allows the operator to install a payload / sensor then conduct a ground / flight test. this data can then be used for subsequent installs of the same payload type, or if the stc holder chooses, can be added to the stc as an approved payload, for all to use as a method of returning the airframe / equipment to service
tyler just got their r44 faa and easa stc with this format, we will be doing the same for our ec-135 and 145 step mount, early in the new year. send a pm if you have any questions, can send along a format version of the new appendix.
thanks
cal
www.meekeraviation.com
tyler just got their r44 faa and easa stc with this format, we will be doing the same for our ec-135 and 145 step mount, early in the new year. send a pm if you have any questions, can send along a format version of the new appendix.
thanks
cal
www.meekeraviation.com
Sorry, mislead you there. It is at
http://www.island-images.co.uk/Aircr.../EF041034.html
Can't see quite how you'd fit a camera under and still land though! Maybe you have to inflate the floats first.....
http://www.island-images.co.uk/Aircr.../EF041034.html
Can't see quite how you'd fit a camera under and still land though! Maybe you have to inflate the floats first.....
The camera sits out on (either) side, above the skid on a cradle that fixes to the for aft rails in the picture.
Thanks for the clarification. That is what I thought, though I don't think a director has to invoice as they are not paying for their seat.
The grey area is that director is often on contract with the production company who are paying for the flight.
An aerial Cameraman is a freelance day player like the pilot and so can invoice heli company and is deemed part of crew.
One interpretation is that a director can be deemed part of the crew for aerial work, but it is his relationship with the production company paying for the flight that is questionable in respect to being a fare paying passenger.
Try Gaelic Helicopters in Mallow nr Cork, they have a gyro stabilised camera and do film work
The grey area is that director is often on contract with the production company who are paying for the flight.
An aerial Cameraman is a freelance day player like the pilot and so can invoice heli company and is deemed part of crew.
One interpretation is that a director can be deemed part of the crew for aerial work, but it is his relationship with the production company paying for the flight that is questionable in respect to being a fare paying passenger.
Mickjoebill
EASA approved?
mickjoebill is correct, we along with tyler have been working with the faa, easa on a new format of stc that allows the operator to install a payload / sensor then conduct a ground / flight test. ...
In respect to EASA registered helicopters... "The specific sensor/camera/light to be added to the STC has to be introduced by a Minor Change with an EASA accepted certification program."
Are they also saying that a payload self certified in the USA and then put on the STC by the holder isn't approved in EU?
Would be handy if EASA signed up to the concept.
Mickjoebill
helimanx have their own easa certificate for their mount i belive it was designed by helimanx and certified in germany AFAIK
Mickjoebill
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: oceanside
Age: 58
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mickjoebill: this is the wording as per the draft, its also the wording on the new tyler stc.
canuck
For helicopters registered in an EU-member state:
The specific sensor/camera/light to be added to the STC has to be introduced by a Minor Change with an EASA accepted certification program.
Once the testing is completed by the Integrator/Operator and the flight test conducted by the Pilot/Operator and EASA Engineer and the Minor Change is approved the sensor/camera/light, can be added to the accepted list in this manual. The report contained herein must be completed and signed prior to the “return to service” for sensor/camera/light.
canuck
For helicopters registered in an EU-member state:
The specific sensor/camera/light to be added to the STC has to be introduced by a Minor Change with an EASA accepted certification program.
Once the testing is completed by the Integrator/Operator and the flight test conducted by the Pilot/Operator and EASA Engineer and the Minor Change is approved the sensor/camera/light, can be added to the accepted list in this manual. The report contained herein must be completed and signed prior to the “return to service” for sensor/camera/light.
EASA rubber stamps still required?
Is the EASA minor change procedure anything new and different to what we do now?
I see the template makes it easier to enter the payload addition in the manual without having to go back to the manufacturer which is a time saver.
But apparently unlike the USA where it is easier to actually test and certify the new payload, we are stuck with existing EASA procedures that require EASA rubber stamps = lost time and money?
Have I got it right?
Mickjoebill
I see the template makes it easier to enter the payload addition in the manual without having to go back to the manufacturer which is a time saver.
But apparently unlike the USA where it is easier to actually test and certify the new payload, we are stuck with existing EASA procedures that require EASA rubber stamps = lost time and money?
Have I got it right?
Mickjoebill
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For this sort of work, I'd suggest you PM "MBJ" - do an advanced search to find him as I'm not sure how to link his details into this post! He's often on this forum.
If anyone else knows more about the availability of aerial film platforms & mounts in the UK, I'd be surprised!
Good luck
If anyone else knows more about the availability of aerial film platforms & mounts in the UK, I'd be surprised!
Good luck
