Reckless endangerment?
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
From: UK
Some good points there Mickjoebill, in this "hypothetical" example, the door is removed and the egress is completely un obstructed. I have the opinion from two independent certified engineers that the (lash up) rig is safe.
Thanks to all for your opinions on this. This is all "hypothetical" at the moment and may or may not lead on to something else.
Lucky for me I had completed a risk assessment and double checked my weight and balance figures.
Thanks to all for your opinions on this. This is all "hypothetical" at the moment and may or may not lead on to something else.
Lucky for me I had completed a risk assessment and double checked my weight and balance figures.
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 2,913
Likes: 0
From: London
Genghis the Engineer
It's a shame for me too - I wish I could.
However, if I could, I would have to qualify and/or correct some things you've said.
Please don't be offended. I respect your engineering qualifications. However, in legal matters as in many other fields, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. ..
The particular danger on PPRuNe is that, if advice appears to be knowledgeable, readers may accept it at face value. I've seen it happen many times over the years, although not often in Rotorheads.
(Edit)
chopjock
If you go ahead and are prosecuted, then your lawyers (preferably aviation specialists) should obtain expert opinion.
NB: From a helicopter specialist with many years of practical experience in helicopter ops - nothing less.
Anyone else could result in you losing a lot more than just the fees you wasted on your 'expert'.
FL
Shame Flying Lawyer isn't able to talk about this stuff any more .....
However, if I could, I would have to qualify and/or correct some things you've said.
Please don't be offended. I respect your engineering qualifications. However, in legal matters as in many other fields, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. ..
The particular danger on PPRuNe is that, if advice appears to be knowledgeable, readers may accept it at face value. I've seen it happen many times over the years, although not often in Rotorheads.
(Edit)
chopjock
If you go ahead and are prosecuted, then your lawyers (preferably aviation specialists) should obtain expert opinion.
NB: From a helicopter specialist with many years of practical experience in helicopter ops - nothing less.
Anyone else could result in you losing a lot more than just the fees you wasted on your 'expert'.
FL
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 28th July 2009 at 15:04.
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,479
Likes: 178
From: UK
Genghis the Engineer
It's a shame for me too - I wish I could.
However, if I could, I would have to qualify and/or correct some things you've said.
Please don't be offended. I respect your engineering qualifications. However, in legal matters as in many other fields, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. ..
The particular danger on PPRuNe is that, if advice appears to be knowledgeable, readers may accept it at face value. I've seen it happen many times over the years, although not often in Rotorheads.
(Edit)
chopjock
If you go ahead and are prosecuted, then your lawyers (preferably aviation specialists) should obtain expert opinion.
NB: From a helicopter specialist with many years of practical experience in helicopter ops - nothing less.
Anyone else could result in you losing a lot more than just the fees you wasted on your 'expert'.
FL
It's a shame for me too - I wish I could.
However, if I could, I would have to qualify and/or correct some things you've said.
Please don't be offended. I respect your engineering qualifications. However, in legal matters as in many other fields, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. ..
The particular danger on PPRuNe is that, if advice appears to be knowledgeable, readers may accept it at face value. I've seen it happen many times over the years, although not often in Rotorheads.
(Edit)
chopjock
If you go ahead and are prosecuted, then your lawyers (preferably aviation specialists) should obtain expert opinion.
NB: From a helicopter specialist with many years of practical experience in helicopter ops - nothing less.
Anyone else could result in you losing a lot more than just the fees you wasted on your 'expert'.
FL
G
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 439
Likes: 1
From: UK
Chopjock: I see you are UK-based. And I'm wondering if the device you refer to is the LSG ? This US-made product is a gyro-stabilised mount for any camera - not a ball.
I ask because I know that a certain FOI has made it his duty to ensure that the mount is not used in the UK because he believes that it should be EASA-approved, even though it is not clamped or bolted to the airframe. It straps to the floor and there lies the problem, apparently.
I ask because I know that a certain FOI has made it his duty to ensure that the mount is not used in the UK because he believes that it should be EASA-approved, even though it is not clamped or bolted to the airframe. It straps to the floor and there lies the problem, apparently.
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 372
Likes: 1
From: Devon
IIRC anything outside the aircraft that might be used as equipment needs a major modification as it has to withstand the slipstream without being disturbed. It is doubtful if a lashed down part would be accepted. BTW I stand to be corrected.
Last edited by Oldlae; 30th July 2009 at 18:00.
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 370
Likes: 18
From: Oman
Forties Field Shuttle with a Dauphin we used to do it all the time in the eighties. (Didn't we Griffo?)
If it didn't fit in the cabin it would be securely lashed down and protrude with both sliding doors pushed back. What's the problem? Obviously no passengers allowed on the same flight. A fuss over nothing.
If it didn't fit in the cabin it would be securely lashed down and protrude with both sliding doors pushed back. What's the problem? Obviously no passengers allowed on the same flight. A fuss over nothing.
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,383
Likes: 1
From: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Mmmm ....
As per OldLae's quote above ... which brings me back to my post #3 at the beginning of this .... no doubt the persons bringing this charge may well prove that the flying characteristics of the a/c MAY have been varied (and they may well test fly an a/c to prove same) .... this in itself I would predict would prove a lack of knowledge in preparing the a/c for flight and thus would constitute recklessness ....
Good luck
As per OldLae's quote above ... which brings me back to my post #3 at the beginning of this .... no doubt the persons bringing this charge may well prove that the flying characteristics of the a/c MAY have been varied (and they may well test fly an a/c to prove same) .... this in itself I would predict would prove a lack of knowledge in preparing the a/c for flight and thus would constitute recklessness ....
Good luck
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 500
Likes: 1
From: London
My own advice from an eminent barrister specialising in aviation cases was that it is a brave individual who goes to court against the CAA as they seem to have the ability to blind a jury with both the ldazzle of their legal team (no expense spared) and their percieved might and righteousness as the Mighty CAA.
One even once told me "The Authority offered to arrange for me to go flying but I told them you're not getting me up in one of those things."
It is extraordinary how often cross-examination of the CAA experts by someone who is conversant with aviation practices completely reverses their case with the prosecution simply not seeing it coming. I don't in any way seek to criticise any individual lawyer, in my experience they have been experienced and good criminal barristers - just not pilots or total or even partial aviation people.
I would hesitate to give any opnion on this case without a lot more information but I echo what FL says, you need to get a good aviation lawyer with access to good experts.
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 2,913
Likes: 0
From: London
FL - I'm sure you and I would be on safe grounds in agreeing on one firm piece of advice: if this isn't theoretical and somebody is genuinely in some potential trouble, they really should go and consult properly, even if they have to pay for the advice, rather than trusting anything that they read on here.
Don't under-estimate the knowledge and experience of the professional helicopter pilots/engineers in this forum.
Someone may even have encountered the issue he's raised and be able to tell him what he needs to do and/or should not do. He says it may or may not come to something. If it does, then it would be a wise precaution to obtain an expert opinion in writing before proceeding further.
Whether for advice before final decision re going ahead, or in the event of a prosecution, it is absolutely vital that the expert should have relevant expertise and experience. eg There are some aspects of aviation in which I would have been very happy to use you as an expert, but obviously not for something like this.
Legalapproach
you need to get a good aviation lawyer with access to good experts.
Agaricus bisporus
Assuming that is exactly what the barrister said, I too was puzzled by the advice you were given by the "eminent barrister specialising in aviation cases."
There were occasions when I advised a pilot to plead guilty, but only if he had no defence. I never had any difficulty coping with the CAA prosecution team. What you describe seems odd.
It's correct that clients are sometimes worried about "going to court against the CAA" and I suspect magistrates or juries may well start off assuming that what you describe as the "Mighty CAA" must know if something is legal or illegal because they are the regulators. However, I never found that to be an insurmountable problem.
.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 30th July 2009 at 21:38.
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
From: UK
Gentlemen,
I am led to believe this hypothetical situation will not develope into something more serious with regards to "reckless endangerment", having had a visit from the campaign. However now another situation exists which I think is open to interpretation.
According to my two certified engineers, this load is only being carried and makes no difference whether it is switched on or not. According to them no modifications have been made to the airframe, so no certification is required. However the campaign says different. Does anyone know where in the ANO can the relevent rules be found on this? ie, it's deemed ok and acceptible to carry rotor blades over hanging the rear doors and strapped in across the cargo deck whilst recovering a downed heli, but it's not ok to hang something else out the door that can be switched on and is secured in a similar manner?
I am led to believe this hypothetical situation will not develope into something more serious with regards to "reckless endangerment", having had a visit from the campaign. However now another situation exists which I think is open to interpretation.
According to my two certified engineers, this load is only being carried and makes no difference whether it is switched on or not. According to them no modifications have been made to the airframe, so no certification is required. However the campaign says different. Does anyone know where in the ANO can the relevent rules be found on this? ie, it's deemed ok and acceptible to carry rotor blades over hanging the rear doors and strapped in across the cargo deck whilst recovering a downed heli, but it's not ok to hang something else out the door that can be switched on and is secured in a similar manner?
Last edited by chopjock; 30th July 2009 at 22:23.
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,937
Likes: 28
From: UK/OZ
There are a few sit on the seat stabilisers which are a challenge to rig as securely as say a Tyler side mount.
The new ones draw attention from engineers as they are neither a hand held camera nor are they an approved item which is secured (from an engineers perspective) to the airframe.
Although the concept of a cameraman leaning out of a door holding a tethered camera is acceptable a 30 kilo apparatus that is top heavy and can usually only be secured at the base by straps, raises concerns with engineers.
On one hand it is safer for the operator to be well inboard operating a sit on the seat mount, rather than hand holding a camera near the open door.
On the other hand the top heavy sit on the seat mount is dependent upon adequate straps to prevent it swaying around in a heavy landing or something more serious.
A safer option is to install it on the floor but this often restricts the angle of view.
I wear a helmet when operating this type of kit in any moving vehicle.
I can't see any reason that they need to be certified anymore than the piece of string tethering the camera to the airframe when hand holding.
One eminent still photographer I know hand holds a very heavy DSLR with 600mm 35mm lens without as much as a strap.
Mickjoebill
The new ones draw attention from engineers as they are neither a hand held camera nor are they an approved item which is secured (from an engineers perspective) to the airframe.
Although the concept of a cameraman leaning out of a door holding a tethered camera is acceptable a 30 kilo apparatus that is top heavy and can usually only be secured at the base by straps, raises concerns with engineers.
On one hand it is safer for the operator to be well inboard operating a sit on the seat mount, rather than hand holding a camera near the open door.
On the other hand the top heavy sit on the seat mount is dependent upon adequate straps to prevent it swaying around in a heavy landing or something more serious.
A safer option is to install it on the floor but this often restricts the angle of view.
I wear a helmet when operating this type of kit in any moving vehicle.
I can't see any reason that they need to be certified anymore than the piece of string tethering the camera to the airframe when hand holding.
One eminent still photographer I know hand holds a very heavy DSLR with 600mm 35mm lens without as much as a strap.
Mickjoebill
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,937
Likes: 28
From: UK/OZ
Few pieces of carry-on equipment that are plugged into comms or power are certified, ie cellphones, cd players ect.
The AS 350 and the robbo encourage the use of accessories by providing accessory sockets.
Most of the spinning mass gyros fixed to these mounts can be run on batteries anyway.
Is campaign saying that nothing can be switched on in the cockpit that is not approved? so use of a laptop is banned? a camcorder?
FAA released guidelines for electrical carry on kit in FADEC aircraft, their main concern is high power RF transmission aerials installed closer than 1 meter to the FADEC computer.
But well intentioned engineers baulk when we turn up with a collection of electrical kit to install into their Fadec heli. Generally they are ill informed.
Mickjoebill
The AS 350 and the robbo encourage the use of accessories by providing accessory sockets.
Most of the spinning mass gyros fixed to these mounts can be run on batteries anyway.
Is campaign saying that nothing can be switched on in the cockpit that is not approved? so use of a laptop is banned? a camcorder?
FAA released guidelines for electrical carry on kit in FADEC aircraft, their main concern is high power RF transmission aerials installed closer than 1 meter to the FADEC computer.
But well intentioned engineers baulk when we turn up with a collection of electrical kit to install into their Fadec heli. Generally they are ill informed.
Mickjoebill
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 439
Likes: 1
From: UK
mickjoebill: I think the problem chopjock describes is a "cargo" problem rather than electric load. (Although quite how anyone can safely plug gyros into a 4-amp rated R44 cigarette socket is beyond me....)
A lot of computer-based equipment (like FADEC systems) is susceptible to voltage drop - and the drop encountered when gimbals and gyros are switched on can cause a flutter even with a totally healthy alternator.
As for your stills photog friend and his unrestrained camera........maybe that's why we need alert FOIs !
A lot of computer-based equipment (like FADEC systems) is susceptible to voltage drop - and the drop encountered when gimbals and gyros are switched on can cause a flutter even with a totally healthy alternator.
As for your stills photog friend and his unrestrained camera........maybe that's why we need alert FOIs !
Last edited by JimBall; 31st July 2009 at 13:30.
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
From: UK
Hughes500 JimBall
Which FOI out of interest ? The mount looks ideal really and as it not attached to the helicopter I dont really see what he can do about it otherwise he will be after Garmin GPS with suction mounts !!!
Which FOI out of interest ? The mount looks ideal really and as it not attached to the helicopter I dont really see what he can do about it otherwise he will be after Garmin GPS with suction mounts !!!
A good job my heli is not a FADEC system then.
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 127
Likes: 2
From: Goathland
Hey, Guys.
If this is about camera mounts, then why doesnt anybody make one that sits in a dumpy bag, and can be slug on the cargo hook? with modern gyro's that would/should be possible especially if you use IR to control it, then the item would be just an underslug load - no certs required?
Ok, I'll get my coat....
Kev.
If this is about camera mounts, then why doesnt anybody make one that sits in a dumpy bag, and can be slug on the cargo hook? with modern gyro's that would/should be possible especially if you use IR to control it, then the item would be just an underslug load - no certs required?
Ok, I'll get my coat....
Kev.
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,479
Likes: 178
From: UK
Whether for advice before final decision re going ahead, or in the event of a prosecution, it is absolutely vital that the expert should have relevant expertise and experience. eg There are some aspects of aviation in which I would have been very happy to use you as an expert, but obviously not for something like this.
G
