Reckless endangerment?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reckless endangerment?
I would like to ask for any one's opinion on the subject of "Reckless Endangerment".
For example if I removed a door from my helicopter and strapped in a load across the floor that was hanging out the door a little, say two feet and weighed about 60 lbs.
Assuming the aircraft is within it's c of g limitations, and within it's max take off weight etc, and the load is 80% within the aircraft and quite secure and does not interfere with the controls and no modifications have been made to the airframe, would any one here consider this to be "Reckless Endangerment"? and if so to who? the aircraft or people on the ground?
For example if I removed a door from my helicopter and strapped in a load across the floor that was hanging out the door a little, say two feet and weighed about 60 lbs.
Assuming the aircraft is within it's c of g limitations, and within it's max take off weight etc, and the load is 80% within the aircraft and quite secure and does not interfere with the controls and no modifications have been made to the airframe, would any one here consider this to be "Reckless Endangerment"? and if so to who? the aircraft or people on the ground?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm guessing that this is not a spur of the moment question...?
My initial thought would be that as long as 1) your removal of the door was iaw the flt manual (and company procedures) and you were authorised to carry out the removal. 2) all aspects of the Flt manual were complied with as regards floor loading, COG etc and that the flt manual did not prohibit cargo sticking out of the aircraft 3) the load was adequately secured, then i can't see how you would be guilty of reckless endangerment.
who thinks you were?
Barny
My initial thought would be that as long as 1) your removal of the door was iaw the flt manual (and company procedures) and you were authorised to carry out the removal. 2) all aspects of the Flt manual were complied with as regards floor loading, COG etc and that the flt manual did not prohibit cargo sticking out of the aircraft 3) the load was adequately secured, then i can't see how you would be guilty of reckless endangerment.
who thinks you were?
Barny
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmmm ...
Well if you then went flying and had an accident (or somebody in authority saw the a/c before you flew) .... and in the course of an investigation .... the investigators found that what you had done (ie loading the aircraft) had or would of significantly altered the flying characteristics of the aircraft (such as the ability to enter a 'steady state autorotation') then .... YES you may well be guilty of "Reckless Endangerment".
Well if you then went flying and had an accident (or somebody in authority saw the a/c before you flew) .... and in the course of an investigation .... the investigators found that what you had done (ie loading the aircraft) had or would of significantly altered the flying characteristics of the aircraft (such as the ability to enter a 'steady state autorotation') then .... YES you may well be guilty of "Reckless Endangerment".
It's one of the CAA's favourite criminal charges, but as a criminal charge requires proof "beyond reasonable doubt".
In the case stated, I'd ask some obvious follow-up questions:
- Is the aircraft cleared for flight with the door off?
- Is the load within the floor load bearing limit?
- Would any qualified pilot or ground engineer reasonably assume that the 2ft of load stuck out of the door and into the prop-wash would create no significant new downwash blockage or asymmetric drag?
If you can convince a jury (or more likely panel of magistrates) that the answer to all three is "yes", then it isn't reckless endangerment. I'd venture that the last question is the difficult one.
(Shame Flying Lawyer isn't able to talk about this stuff any more, he'd be much better than me on the subject - but for the record I've done 8 aviation court cases as an expert witness, one a defence from a CAA prosecution for just this thing - albeit after a fixed wing prang, and I also studied helicopter design to degree level.)
G
In the case stated, I'd ask some obvious follow-up questions:
- Is the aircraft cleared for flight with the door off?
- Is the load within the floor load bearing limit?
- Would any qualified pilot or ground engineer reasonably assume that the 2ft of load stuck out of the door and into the prop-wash would create no significant new downwash blockage or asymmetric drag?
If you can convince a jury (or more likely panel of magistrates) that the answer to all three is "yes", then it isn't reckless endangerment. I'd venture that the last question is the difficult one.
(Shame Flying Lawyer isn't able to talk about this stuff any more, he'd be much better than me on the subject - but for the record I've done 8 aviation court cases as an expert witness, one a defence from a CAA prosecution for just this thing - albeit after a fixed wing prang, and I also studied helicopter design to degree level.)
G
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok here's a little more information...
The aircraft is cleared for doors off flight and up to 600lbs or 3 pax in the front seats.
I have two certified engineers who's opinion is the aero dynamic shape of the load and the way it is secured is safe.
The aircraft flies in perfect trim up to VNE
I appreciate the comments, for and against. Please keep them coming.
The aircraft is cleared for doors off flight and up to 600lbs or 3 pax in the front seats.
I have two certified engineers who's opinion is the aero dynamic shape of the load and the way it is secured is safe.
The aircraft flies in perfect trim up to VNE
I appreciate the comments, for and against. Please keep them coming.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Gold Coast, Queensland
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure most bush pilots have done this. However it was pointed out to me that the flight manual does not have a fuel flow figure in this configaration, therefore it is illegal.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly without specifics - all of them - no one here is going to be able to help. Presumably you've fixed something to your Enstrom or Hughes 500 that someone thinks shouldn't be there, but withiout the what and how we're not going to be any the wiser.
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.
He was not at all confident in getting me off a charge of infringing the 1500ft rule while filming over an aerodrome on a specific CAA exemption from the 500 ft rule, despite the fact that he'd have coined in £000s for the case no matter the outcome.
Get the idea?
Taking off yer fibreglass rocket pods or whatever they are and telling them you'll accept a slapped wrist just might be the cheapest, though no doubt unpalatable option.
Good luck!
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.
He was not at all confident in getting me off a charge of infringing the 1500ft rule while filming over an aerodrome on a specific CAA exemption from the 500 ft rule, despite the fact that he'd have coined in £000s for the case no matter the outcome.
Get the idea?
Taking off yer fibreglass rocket pods or whatever they are and telling them you'll accept a slapped wrist just might be the cheapest, though no doubt unpalatable option.
Good luck!
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 426 Likes
on
225 Posts
I would say it wasn't reckless, provided you did a sensible risk assessment.
Like I did when I was asked to go out and bring home a large piece of an aircraft (inner flap from an almost new Boeing 747) which had fallen off in flight.
I was originally asked to carry it as an underslung load in a net. I assessed this as very dangerous - after all, it was a fairly lightweight piece of aircraft designed to produce lift and it therefore might well fly up and hit the aircraft or even into the rotor once we got under way (just like a complete Harrier wing once tried to do when the RAF tried to undersling one).
It was too big to fit in the cabin lengthwise. I agreed to fit it across the cabin, sticking some distance out of each sliding door, as long as it was tied down facing backwards and upside down. I flew it at slow speed (about 50 kts) and it was fine.
The local (non UK) Civil Aviation Department had no issue with this, in fact they saw it as a job well done. The task request was from them and two of their staff were on board throughout the task.
Like I did when I was asked to go out and bring home a large piece of an aircraft (inner flap from an almost new Boeing 747) which had fallen off in flight.
I was originally asked to carry it as an underslung load in a net. I assessed this as very dangerous - after all, it was a fairly lightweight piece of aircraft designed to produce lift and it therefore might well fly up and hit the aircraft or even into the rotor once we got under way (just like a complete Harrier wing once tried to do when the RAF tried to undersling one).
It was too big to fit in the cabin lengthwise. I agreed to fit it across the cabin, sticking some distance out of each sliding door, as long as it was tied down facing backwards and upside down. I flew it at slow speed (about 50 kts) and it was fine.
The local (non UK) Civil Aviation Department had no issue with this, in fact they saw it as a job well done. The task request was from them and two of their staff were on board throughout the task.
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aircraft is cleared for doors off flight and up to 600lbs or 3 pax in the front seats.
Cheers
Whirls
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hughes 300! Oh No!!
Dont say...!!
You've taken that bloody nimby woman from Norfolk for a ride by force and strapped her to a plank and wedged her face down out of the door so she could see what fun helicopters really are. Fnaaar!!!
There's little hope I fear, you'll get an ASBO and have to listen to her lawnmower from just 50 feet away for an hour at a time - so your quality of life will be utterly ruined too.
Dont say...!!
You've taken that bloody nimby woman from Norfolk for a ride by force and strapped her to a plank and wedged her face down out of the door so she could see what fun helicopters really are. Fnaaar!!!
There's little hope I fear, you'll get an ASBO and have to listen to her lawnmower from just 50 feet away for an hour at a time - so your quality of life will be utterly ruined too.
Not commenting on this thread specifically but just to Nigel Osborne and purely out of curiosity.
I called one of the manufacturers a few years ago because their new model had no fuel flow figures or graphs like the old one did and they pointed out to me that they are not required to put them in the manual so they don't anymore.
The engine manufacturers are the ones who give the fuel vs Atmospherics and power setting graphs in their documentation and I can't see that changing at all in this case. There will (in almost every case) be a drag penalty to pay resulting in increased power setting and increase fuel flow, but if the airframe manufacturer doesn't need to publish it how can it be illegal in that context anyway ?
I am talking about an aircraft manufactured and approved in the US.
I called one of the manufacturers a few years ago because their new model had no fuel flow figures or graphs like the old one did and they pointed out to me that they are not required to put them in the manual so they don't anymore.
The engine manufacturers are the ones who give the fuel vs Atmospherics and power setting graphs in their documentation and I can't see that changing at all in this case. There will (in almost every case) be a drag penalty to pay resulting in increased power setting and increase fuel flow, but if the airframe manufacturer doesn't need to publish it how can it be illegal in that context anyway ?
I am talking about an aircraft manufactured and approved in the US.
Last edited by VeeAny; 28th Jul 2009 at 15:01. Reason: Added context comment.
Let's hypothetically say that somebody is being charged as discussed, and it's by the CAA.
Now, if the CAA are unhappy about something, they have the full force of the organisation behind them. This means that if anybody is capable of finding an ANO infringement, they'll have done so.
So, if the charge does not include any ANO infringement, but ONLY reckless endangerment, this implies to me that they couldn't find one.
So, your barrister would probably conduct a discussion along these lines in court:
Barrister: "So, Mr CAA, you've reviewed the ANO, manuals, licencing regulations and so-on, and you've not charged my client with any breach of any UK regulations".
CAA: "That is correct, we've charged him with reckless endangerment"
Barrister: "So, you are saying that it is possible to recklessly endanger the public by fully complying with CAA regulations".
That, pretty much, was the course by which the chap I helped out got off his CAA sponsored criminal prosecution. And, in my opinion, appropriately so (albeit that the discussion above actually ran to about 7 hours).
G
Now, if the CAA are unhappy about something, they have the full force of the organisation behind them. This means that if anybody is capable of finding an ANO infringement, they'll have done so.
So, if the charge does not include any ANO infringement, but ONLY reckless endangerment, this implies to me that they couldn't find one.
So, your barrister would probably conduct a discussion along these lines in court:
Barrister: "So, Mr CAA, you've reviewed the ANO, manuals, licencing regulations and so-on, and you've not charged my client with any breach of any UK regulations".
CAA: "That is correct, we've charged him with reckless endangerment"
Barrister: "So, you are saying that it is possible to recklessly endanger the public by fully complying with CAA regulations".
That, pretty much, was the course by which the chap I helped out got off his CAA sponsored criminal prosecution. And, in my opinion, appropriately so (albeit that the discussion above actually ran to about 7 hours).
G
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Behind a dusty desk, and in some really hot, dusty, wet and cold places subject to who is paying the bill. But mostly Gods own land.
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a good question!
If I remember correctly to prove recklessness you need to prove 3 things:
Trying to convince a jury and or a Judge that you did something and you hadn’t realised it would cause harm could be really tricky, I would suggest that civilians would always side with the voice that is on the righteous side of safety.
Rule of thumb, if your intent on doing this, do a risk assessment, detail what your going to do, reduce the risks as far as possible, if your still intent and cannot reduce the risk any further then all your left with is the known risk which can be foreseen, can you justify it? & latent error which cannot be reasonably foreseen.
If I remember correctly to prove recklessness you need to prove 3 things:
- There is an objective test where a reasonable person test is applied, I would suggest that in this case, “the reasonable Pilot” and would the outcome/consequences have been reasonably foreseeable by the reasonable Pilot… I haven’t done one of these for Pilots but in similar professional situations it often comes down to a bun fight with either side producing expert reasonable pilots who are there to respectively shoot you down or support your position. I would suggest that if “something” were to happen you might find it difficult to find a reasonable Pilot to support you.
- There is also a subjective test where the court itself would try to establish your state of mind at the time of the “occurrence”. I.e. what you were thinking; if they came to the conclusion that you were aware of any risks it may not be beneficial to your case, and if there was an occurrence when you have done something “odd” to an aircraft it may be very difficult to convince the court that you thought everything was “safe”.
- I think the final test is the first two weighed up together.
Trying to convince a jury and or a Judge that you did something and you hadn’t realised it would cause harm could be really tricky, I would suggest that civilians would always side with the voice that is on the righteous side of safety.
Rule of thumb, if your intent on doing this, do a risk assessment, detail what your going to do, reduce the risks as far as possible, if your still intent and cannot reduce the risk any further then all your left with is the known risk which can be foreseen, can you justify it? & latent error which cannot be reasonably foreseen.
Last edited by Miles Gustaph; 26th Jul 2009 at 17:01. Reason: Typos
The nub of this is " an ordinary person test " now comes down to risk assessment. Every time we take off from a confined area, approach a confined area we subconsciously do a risk assessment. The same can be said of c of g calacs, I have worked for 2 companies where one has chosen actual weights of pax the other average weights. You could argue that average weights is reckless endangerment, can certainly think of a few incidents where the pax were way heavier than average, but according to the manual ( CAA approved) we were legal
Basically the CAA would appear to be on a fishing exercise probably supported by an other helicopter company ( competition) who is feeling peeved, either wrongly or rightly.
Basically the CAA would appear to be on a fishing exercise probably supported by an other helicopter company ( competition) who is feeling peeved, either wrongly or rightly.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Behind a dusty desk, and in some really hot, dusty, wet and cold places subject to who is paying the bill. But mostly Gods own land.
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hughes,
the "ordinary person test" is not the same as a risk assessment in this case.
The risk assessment is to mitigate if not remove all the "risk" you can, this is a much different situation to had you not carried out the risk assessment.
For example:
a) An accident with no risk assessment: it could be said that you deliberately and knowingly did what you did without taking any precautions to prevent it... not so good, back to your safe argument and juries being pro safety.
b) An accident: Having carried out a risk assessment and taken all the precautions possible, or that you could think of makes it is easier to say that you couldn't have reasonably foreseen the occurrence.
A risk assessment is a "block" in the safety chain, James Reasons swiss cheese model, that acts as a buffer to the actions of the end user.
So when the duty lyncher claims that you knowingly endangered X, you can say, "not so! I did a risk assessment, carried out mitigating acts that I believed would stop X, this was an unforeseen occurance/act, possibly due to a "latent" error ...etc bang goes a juries/ judges beyond reasonable doubt....well that's the plan!"
Rule of thumb number 1. if you cant justify it before you do it, don't do it.
Rule of thumb number 2. if you can justify it think again considering that when we mess up in aviation we quite often kill people.
the "ordinary person test" is not the same as a risk assessment in this case.
The risk assessment is to mitigate if not remove all the "risk" you can, this is a much different situation to had you not carried out the risk assessment.
For example:
a) An accident with no risk assessment: it could be said that you deliberately and knowingly did what you did without taking any precautions to prevent it... not so good, back to your safe argument and juries being pro safety.
b) An accident: Having carried out a risk assessment and taken all the precautions possible, or that you could think of makes it is easier to say that you couldn't have reasonably foreseen the occurrence.
A risk assessment is a "block" in the safety chain, James Reasons swiss cheese model, that acts as a buffer to the actions of the end user.
So when the duty lyncher claims that you knowingly endangered X, you can say, "not so! I did a risk assessment, carried out mitigating acts that I believed would stop X, this was an unforeseen occurance/act, possibly due to a "latent" error ...etc bang goes a juries/ judges beyond reasonable doubt....well that's the plan!"
Rule of thumb number 1. if you cant justify it before you do it, don't do it.
Rule of thumb number 2. if you can justify it think again considering that when we mess up in aviation we quite often kill people.
What is being hung out a tube, plank or camera, person ?
Is there a precedent ? do other people hang the thing out ? has there been an incident ?
Is the machine UK registered? if not does the reg authority allow the TPCP to be hung out, or does this not count with RE..
Lots of questions no answers
Is there a precedent ? do other people hang the thing out ? has there been an incident ?
Is the machine UK registered? if not does the reg authority allow the TPCP to be hung out, or does this not count with RE..
Lots of questions no answers
Whirls,
Barely squeezed in did you Sweets?
Barely squeezed in did you Sweets?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 426 Likes
on
225 Posts
Q: Would the driver of a road vehicle, such as a van, where the rear doors are left open to accommodate a long internal load, face a charge of "reckless endangerment"?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On the green bit near the blue wobbly stuff
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Chopjock,
If its not a black & white, open & shut case, where there is no clear violation of a specific rule, its going to be down to who argues best in court.
I'm with Genghis on this one - sounds like you have a good expert witness if you need one there. If they cannot prove "beyond all reasonable doubt" that you acted in a way that was:
a) reckless, and
b) endangering someone,
they are not going to win. If you can show that you took reasonable sensible precautions, did the calculations, were within the aircraft limitations, ANO etc, how can anyone prove you were reckless? With an expert witness on your side to say you werent endangering anyone either, then at the very least you have created reasonable doubt, even if the CAA disagree.
If its not a black & white, open & shut case, where there is no clear violation of a specific rule, its going to be down to who argues best in court.
I'm with Genghis on this one - sounds like you have a good expert witness if you need one there. If they cannot prove "beyond all reasonable doubt" that you acted in a way that was:
a) reckless, and
b) endangering someone,
they are not going to win. If you can show that you took reasonable sensible precautions, did the calculations, were within the aircraft limitations, ANO etc, how can anyone prove you were reckless? With an expert witness on your side to say you werent endangering anyone either, then at the very least you have created reasonable doubt, even if the CAA disagree.
From an aerial camera operators perspective.
"We" can justify the mechanical probity of lashup camera mounts with a few engineers tugging and pulling at the thing. The rule of thumb is if the rigging fails will it effect flight? In some countries this kick the tires test is all that is required for permission for a particular flight. It helps if there are no welds or complicated cross bracing and the rig looks like it has a very high safety factor and simple WYSIWYG fixings.
However I think it reckless from a business standpoint, as in the event of an incident as the onus will be on the operator to prove installation had no adverse effect on
1/Aircraft performance- could the aircraft have made a successful emergency landing without the rig?
2/Crash worthiness- did the rig contribute to injuries in the cabin or delay egress?
For instance, a camera man was killed last year when the helicopter crashed during a shoot. Other occupants survived but the cameraman was pinned/crushed by a (fully approved) side camera mount.
Imagine the implications to this case if an unapproved mount was used.
In contrast in 2004 a cameraman died when his home made camera mount prevented him egressing the fixed wing that had to ditch. Three other occupants escaped but the cameraman was snagged on his own lash-up rigging and drowned.
From a moral perspective I consider it wrong if one is flying with others onboard (who are not aware that their safety if not their insurance! is being compromised) or when flying over a built up area with anything but an approved mount.
Having been through the process of commissioning designing flight testing and gaining CAA approval there are numerous engineering and legal gotchas that are not immediately apparent.
For instance, it is interesting to note that some helicopter manufacturers do not even rate the load capacity of in-floor cargo hooks, yet operators ratchet strap down precious cargo and then fly with doors off.
But the world of approved mounts is not all rosy.
There are varying standards of engineering and design with a range of design safety factors starting as low as 1.1.
One locally approved design in Scandinavia pays no respect to the notion that their can be a power failure as the bracket puts the camera so low if the camera is not tilted up for landing it actually touches the ground!
A common nose camera mounting point for the bell 206 and (I think ) 4 series uses fixings designed to retain nothing more than panels in an area where Bell did not envisage any exterior load. Bell will state that that part of the aircraft is not designed to hang cameras from yet their has been a number of mounts approved partially or wholly using these fixings.
To prove this particular example, after consultation with engineers and Bell a European operator went to the trouble and great expense of reinforcing the nose of his Bell 206 so he could fit a relatively lightweight 20kg gimbal.
Ditto the R44 side camera mount. Last time I enquired Robinson said that they do not recommend bolting cameras to the side of their R44 yet there is an approved mount to do so.
Aviation laws and their enforcement are inconsistent, but a few things are cast in stone when going off road with a lash-up mount.
You are as sure as hell not improving flight safety or heli performance and probably compromising crash survivability of the occupants and your business.
So maybe it is a little reckless?
Mickjoebill
"We" can justify the mechanical probity of lashup camera mounts with a few engineers tugging and pulling at the thing. The rule of thumb is if the rigging fails will it effect flight? In some countries this kick the tires test is all that is required for permission for a particular flight. It helps if there are no welds or complicated cross bracing and the rig looks like it has a very high safety factor and simple WYSIWYG fixings.
However I think it reckless from a business standpoint, as in the event of an incident as the onus will be on the operator to prove installation had no adverse effect on
1/Aircraft performance- could the aircraft have made a successful emergency landing without the rig?
2/Crash worthiness- did the rig contribute to injuries in the cabin or delay egress?
For instance, a camera man was killed last year when the helicopter crashed during a shoot. Other occupants survived but the cameraman was pinned/crushed by a (fully approved) side camera mount.
Imagine the implications to this case if an unapproved mount was used.
In contrast in 2004 a cameraman died when his home made camera mount prevented him egressing the fixed wing that had to ditch. Three other occupants escaped but the cameraman was snagged on his own lash-up rigging and drowned.
From a moral perspective I consider it wrong if one is flying with others onboard (who are not aware that their safety if not their insurance! is being compromised) or when flying over a built up area with anything but an approved mount.
Having been through the process of commissioning designing flight testing and gaining CAA approval there are numerous engineering and legal gotchas that are not immediately apparent.
For instance, it is interesting to note that some helicopter manufacturers do not even rate the load capacity of in-floor cargo hooks, yet operators ratchet strap down precious cargo and then fly with doors off.
But the world of approved mounts is not all rosy.
There are varying standards of engineering and design with a range of design safety factors starting as low as 1.1.
One locally approved design in Scandinavia pays no respect to the notion that their can be a power failure as the bracket puts the camera so low if the camera is not tilted up for landing it actually touches the ground!
A common nose camera mounting point for the bell 206 and (I think ) 4 series uses fixings designed to retain nothing more than panels in an area where Bell did not envisage any exterior load. Bell will state that that part of the aircraft is not designed to hang cameras from yet their has been a number of mounts approved partially or wholly using these fixings.
To prove this particular example, after consultation with engineers and Bell a European operator went to the trouble and great expense of reinforcing the nose of his Bell 206 so he could fit a relatively lightweight 20kg gimbal.
Ditto the R44 side camera mount. Last time I enquired Robinson said that they do not recommend bolting cameras to the side of their R44 yet there is an approved mount to do so.
Aviation laws and their enforcement are inconsistent, but a few things are cast in stone when going off road with a lash-up mount.
You are as sure as hell not improving flight safety or heli performance and probably compromising crash survivability of the occupants and your business.
So maybe it is a little reckless?
Mickjoebill