Helicopter commander in court for allegedly breaking rules
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Wiltshire, UK
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few years ago, I was asked by a UK video producer to find a helicopter to do some aerial filming. A foreign film crew were to video a specific train on a specific stretch of line in the UK. This flight would take place over the Easter weekend. They were to bring their own camera equipment and helicopter mount.
I put him in touch with a charter operation and told him that if the mount wasn’t approved in the UK he’d have to rent one that was.
The operator applied to the CAA for Rule 5 exemptions but this was turned down. The main reason given was that as the specified part of the railway line ran parallel to a major A road, the helicopter may distract drivers and cause a road accident – quoting the example of the Land Rover & trailer ending up on the line causing a serious rail crash, and it was Easter weekend with expected heavy traffic. The job was therefore turned down and that was the last I heard of it.
About a year later the same producer called me for another task. During the conversation I said that it was a pity that the train job hadn’t happened but that’s life, etc… He then told me that it DID happen, on the day and at the place that they wanted. He had simply rung around until he found someone that would do it without permissions.
He went on to tell me what great shots they got, including a shot of the train entering frame from ABOVE – i.e. the helicopter was BELOW the level of the embankment.
He told me that the reason given by the operator for being able to achieve this without CAA permission/exemption was that ‘it wasn’t in a built-up area, so it doesn’t need permission’. I am also led to understand that they used an un-approved camera fit.
So, job done and customer happy. No road accident as far as I know. The cameraman/camera didn’t fall out…. but, if the flight was conducted in breach of the Rules of the Air and if it did have an un-approved camera mount which would invalidate the C of A (I expect that the insurance would be invalid too with no C of A) - who was right and who was wrong?
I put him in touch with a charter operation and told him that if the mount wasn’t approved in the UK he’d have to rent one that was.
The operator applied to the CAA for Rule 5 exemptions but this was turned down. The main reason given was that as the specified part of the railway line ran parallel to a major A road, the helicopter may distract drivers and cause a road accident – quoting the example of the Land Rover & trailer ending up on the line causing a serious rail crash, and it was Easter weekend with expected heavy traffic. The job was therefore turned down and that was the last I heard of it.
About a year later the same producer called me for another task. During the conversation I said that it was a pity that the train job hadn’t happened but that’s life, etc… He then told me that it DID happen, on the day and at the place that they wanted. He had simply rung around until he found someone that would do it without permissions.
He went on to tell me what great shots they got, including a shot of the train entering frame from ABOVE – i.e. the helicopter was BELOW the level of the embankment.
He told me that the reason given by the operator for being able to achieve this without CAA permission/exemption was that ‘it wasn’t in a built-up area, so it doesn’t need permission’. I am also led to understand that they used an un-approved camera fit.
So, job done and customer happy. No road accident as far as I know. The cameraman/camera didn’t fall out…. but, if the flight was conducted in breach of the Rules of the Air and if it did have an un-approved camera mount which would invalidate the C of A (I expect that the insurance would be invalid too with no C of A) - who was right and who was wrong?
Last edited by TRC; 10th Jan 2011 at 18:45. Reason: Clarity
From the discussion about getting permission from the CAA and paying a fee, one of our CASA FOI's summed it up for me on one occasion: they are granting you an exemption to break the law and have every right to ensure that whoever signs off on the exemption will not be held to account. There may be further limitations imposed by the FOI, depending on the flying requirement and the pilot/equipment, or there may not. We were granted a permanent low flying ops permission (as are many AOC holders) which imposed certain criteria, but the cost was negligible and the benefits to both CASA and the operator are obvious. They don't get tied up dealing with lots of approvals, and the operator self regulates within the conditions of the permission.
Whilst the CAA and CASA can both seem overly restrictive, if you seek to deliberately operate outside the Rules and Regulations you should make sure that your backside is properly covered. In the scheme of things a fee for a permission is inevitably much less than the cost of a court case.
Whilst the CAA and CASA can both seem overly restrictive, if you seek to deliberately operate outside the Rules and Regulations you should make sure that your backside is properly covered. In the scheme of things a fee for a permission is inevitably much less than the cost of a court case.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Pilot hit by train (fine)
Helicopter pilot hit with fine after train 'buzzed'
..........
I/C
..........
Helicopter pilot hit with fine after train 'buzzed'
It was supposed to be a wonderful cross-country jaunt on a steam engine that the 300 passengers on board would never forget.
By Nick Britten 7:00AM GMT 10 Jan 2011
And it is certainly a voyage that will live long in the memory, but not for the reasons intended.
Soon after the Edinburgh-London journey began, passengers noticed the train was being “buzzed” and that a helicopter was flying low over it, criss-crossing its path.
Some were so worried they immediately contacted the Civil Aviation Authority, whilst others filmed what was happening on their mobile phones.
What none of them knew was that the pilot, Vincent Campion, 44, had been hired by the steam train owners to film a documentary of the journey.
Campion, who is highly experienced and has helped shoot a number of films before, flew the film crew to within a few hundred feet of the vintage train as it thundered south, criss-crossing its path to get good shots of the plume of steam billowing from the funnel.
However, the pilot's low-level flying has landed him in trouble with the CAA, who prosecuted him for flying closer than the legal 500ft limit, landing Campion with a £1,250 fine.
Magistrates in Maidenhead heard how Campion, who also filmed a steam train race featuring Jeremy Clarkson for the BBC's Top Gear, and works for FlyingTV, an aerial filming company run by the former BBC DJ Mike Smith, was hired by a specialist tour company in April last year to record the final, 400-mile leg of the Great Britain III steam train excursion.
Alison Slater, prosecuting for the CAA, said: "The reason for the 500ft rule will be apparent. It is a safety issue.
"Soon after departing a number of passengers observed, or became aware that there was a helicopter flying alongside the train, and crossing over from side to side."
Some of the passengers estimated the aircraft was less than 150ft away.
At York the Princess Elizabeth locomotive gave way to The Bittern, and after a break for both the train and the Robinson R44 helicopter helicopter in Nottinghamshire, the filming resumed.
The aircraft only parted company with the train when they were passing Huntingdon, Cambs, with passengers still concerned at how close it was.
Miss Slater said: "Photographs were taken by some of the witnesses. Three have been examined and it has been calculated that the distance between the photographers and helicopter is between 248ft and 261ft."
Tim Scorer, defending, told the court the crime was "something of a technical offence".
He said: "It was a rather special journey for people who had paid quite a lot of money and the owner of the steam train commissioned Mr Campion to provide a very good film account."
Describing Campion, from Waltham St Lawrence, Berks, as "Captain" he said the defendant was a commercial helicopter pilot, qualified on both rotary and fixed wing aircraft, with more than 4,500 hours of experience and who had flown all over the world working on many television and film assignments.
Fining him and ordering him to pat £360 costs and £15 victim surcharge, Brian Darracott, Presiding magistrate, said: “We have heard no expression of any recklessness in your flying. On the other hand you are an experienced pilot and you should have been aware you were flying below 500ft for some considerable distance."
The CAA said it would be reviewing Campion’s license.
It was supposed to be a wonderful cross-country jaunt on a steam engine that the 300 passengers on board would never forget.
By Nick Britten 7:00AM GMT 10 Jan 2011
And it is certainly a voyage that will live long in the memory, but not for the reasons intended.
Soon after the Edinburgh-London journey began, passengers noticed the train was being “buzzed” and that a helicopter was flying low over it, criss-crossing its path.
Some were so worried they immediately contacted the Civil Aviation Authority, whilst others filmed what was happening on their mobile phones.
What none of them knew was that the pilot, Vincent Campion, 44, had been hired by the steam train owners to film a documentary of the journey.
Campion, who is highly experienced and has helped shoot a number of films before, flew the film crew to within a few hundred feet of the vintage train as it thundered south, criss-crossing its path to get good shots of the plume of steam billowing from the funnel.
However, the pilot's low-level flying has landed him in trouble with the CAA, who prosecuted him for flying closer than the legal 500ft limit, landing Campion with a £1,250 fine.
Magistrates in Maidenhead heard how Campion, who also filmed a steam train race featuring Jeremy Clarkson for the BBC's Top Gear, and works for FlyingTV, an aerial filming company run by the former BBC DJ Mike Smith, was hired by a specialist tour company in April last year to record the final, 400-mile leg of the Great Britain III steam train excursion.
Alison Slater, prosecuting for the CAA, said: "The reason for the 500ft rule will be apparent. It is a safety issue.
"Soon after departing a number of passengers observed, or became aware that there was a helicopter flying alongside the train, and crossing over from side to side."
Some of the passengers estimated the aircraft was less than 150ft away.
At York the Princess Elizabeth locomotive gave way to The Bittern, and after a break for both the train and the Robinson R44 helicopter helicopter in Nottinghamshire, the filming resumed.
The aircraft only parted company with the train when they were passing Huntingdon, Cambs, with passengers still concerned at how close it was.
Miss Slater said: "Photographs were taken by some of the witnesses. Three have been examined and it has been calculated that the distance between the photographers and helicopter is between 248ft and 261ft."
Tim Scorer, defending, told the court the crime was "something of a technical offence".
He said: "It was a rather special journey for people who had paid quite a lot of money and the owner of the steam train commissioned Mr Campion to provide a very good film account."
Describing Campion, from Waltham St Lawrence, Berks, as "Captain" he said the defendant was a commercial helicopter pilot, qualified on both rotary and fixed wing aircraft, with more than 4,500 hours of experience and who had flown all over the world working on many television and film assignments.
Fining him and ordering him to pat £360 costs and £15 victim surcharge, Brian Darracott, Presiding magistrate, said: “We have heard no expression of any recklessness in your flying. On the other hand you are an experienced pilot and you should have been aware you were flying below 500ft for some considerable distance."
The CAA said it would be reviewing Campion’s license.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
Just goes to show who the CAA go after - the pilot.
But how come the AOC holder hadn't obtained the necessary Rule 5 permission?
But how come the AOC holder hadn't obtained the necessary Rule 5 permission?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
I read the report of the court case.
You have to wonder why so many passengers took exception or were surprised. Had they known the purpose of the flight (informed by the conductor, am announcement or an info leaflet) bet they would have seen the flight in a more positive light and not complained.
ShyTorque - good point. If it was a company car, the fleet administrator would be at least equally liable for legislative compliance. I also agree with Torquetalk; communicating to all train pax that the trip would be filmed from a helicopter at close quarters would have probably avoided the original complaint. So much for hindsight...
As for you Mr. Campion, I have no doubt it's been a traumatic time, but try and put it behind you now. Pick yourself up, dust yourself down and get back in the seat!
As for you Mr. Campion, I have no doubt it's been a traumatic time, but try and put it behind you now. Pick yourself up, dust yourself down and get back in the seat!
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
Yes ... the Daily Telegraph as linked above in post #64 by Ian Corrigible. The AOC holder is mentioned by name. Or didn't you know they held an AOC?
Cheers
Whirls
Cheers
Whirls
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure the report above states that Campion was hired, not Flying TV. He just works for them. Probably works freelance for himself too. If Flying TV were hired I think they would have been prosecuted by the CAA as the operator.
I would have thought that Flying TV would most certainly have a permission to fly closer than 500 feet.
I would have thought that Flying TV would most certainly have a permission to fly closer than 500 feet.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Flying TV were hired I think they would have been prosecuted by the CAA as the operator.
Unless they told the pilot to go closer than 500 feet they ain't done anything illegal.
IMHO prosecuting the pilot was OTT. He should have been given a warning.
Miss Slater said: "Photographs were taken by some of the witnesses. Three have been examined and it has been calculated that the distance between the photographers and helicopter is between 248ft and 261ft."
There's no way the distance could have been calculated to within a range of 13 feet.
Brian Darracott, Presiding magistrate, said: “........ you should have been aware you were flying below 500ft."
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
Chopjock, if a passenger was on board taking photographs it was Public Transport.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if a passenger was on board taking photographs it was Public Transport.
For example, If I dry hired a machine, took one of my employees with me to take some pics, is that public transport?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's only public transport if the photogropher or someone on their behalf hires you to carry them. As you say a photogropher employed by the operator is a passenger but does not require AOC cover.
An opertor with no AOC, and only offering aerial filming services may even carry other pax so long as the flight goes with or without them at the same cost. It remains aerial work.
A company who holds an AOC may not carry free pax without considering it Public Transport. So if you offer filming as well as other transport services as an AOC operation, a director for example would have to be carried PT, while the dedicated filming operation could carry them free wiith no AOC.
It's all out there to look up in various documents!
An opertor with no AOC, and only offering aerial filming services may even carry other pax so long as the flight goes with or without them at the same cost. It remains aerial work.
A company who holds an AOC may not carry free pax without considering it Public Transport. So if you offer filming as well as other transport services as an AOC operation, a director for example would have to be carried PT, while the dedicated filming operation could carry them free wiith no AOC.
It's all out there to look up in various documents!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many moons ago, the Legal Enforcement Branch of the CAA (or whatever they are called these days) was headed by a keen PPL(H). He used to fly from where I worked. He said that it was a relatively straightforward thing to work out how far away an aircraft was from where a photograph was taken, knowing things like the focal length of the lens used and the size of the helicopter. There must undoubtedly be an inaccuracy associated with such estimates, but it might be wise to remember that they will try to "distance" you from a photo.
Does it say in any of the reports whether the defendant pleaded guilty or not? I could not find this rather important piece of info.
I think it likely that the flight was carried out using one of Flying Tv's R44 ENG machines, with permanent video camera ball. Most AOC holders who do lots of aerial filming/photography seem to have permanent exemptions from the 500 ft rule (with conditions). I assume that Flying TV do not, or at least it was not mentioned in the reports.
Flying TV have ruffled a few feathers since they started their operations - some twin engine operators were annoyed when they started doing filming and photography in areas where it was presumed only twins could effectively do filming. I believe the arguments were raised here on a thread, and someone purporting to represent Flying TV had a robust view of what was and was not possible. The other feathers that may have been ruffled were some at the CAA. The CAA has a long memory, even if it did not involve Kim Campion in the earlier incidents.
2 thoughts for the future, as a general suggestion, and not presuming to necessarily apply here:
Given that almost everyone has a camera these days, almost any flight you do in the UK WILL be photographed or filmed, especially if its profile is high.
Never rely on your operator - check out everything yourself. The ops people may well be keener to get the work than protect your licence. Recognise that the pilot is almost always the one closest to breaking the rules, and whose breach can most easily be proved.
Incidentally, although it is not strictly relevant to this incident (the 500 ft rule applies to all flights), I am not so sure as Noiseboy that whether a flight is PT or not is always so clear. It can be a complicated issue. For example, take a filming job where a helicopter is used with a camera mount, a cameraman and film director (who are not employees of the operator0. THe flight is carried out by an AOC holder who gets paid for the flight. The paperwork for the mount says that the aircraft C of A is downgraded to "aerial work only" as a result of fitting the mount. How is it ever possible to legally carry out this flight?
Does it say in any of the reports whether the defendant pleaded guilty or not? I could not find this rather important piece of info.
I think it likely that the flight was carried out using one of Flying Tv's R44 ENG machines, with permanent video camera ball. Most AOC holders who do lots of aerial filming/photography seem to have permanent exemptions from the 500 ft rule (with conditions). I assume that Flying TV do not, or at least it was not mentioned in the reports.
Flying TV have ruffled a few feathers since they started their operations - some twin engine operators were annoyed when they started doing filming and photography in areas where it was presumed only twins could effectively do filming. I believe the arguments were raised here on a thread, and someone purporting to represent Flying TV had a robust view of what was and was not possible. The other feathers that may have been ruffled were some at the CAA. The CAA has a long memory, even if it did not involve Kim Campion in the earlier incidents.
2 thoughts for the future, as a general suggestion, and not presuming to necessarily apply here:
Given that almost everyone has a camera these days, almost any flight you do in the UK WILL be photographed or filmed, especially if its profile is high.
Never rely on your operator - check out everything yourself. The ops people may well be keener to get the work than protect your licence. Recognise that the pilot is almost always the one closest to breaking the rules, and whose breach can most easily be proved.
Incidentally, although it is not strictly relevant to this incident (the 500 ft rule applies to all flights), I am not so sure as Noiseboy that whether a flight is PT or not is always so clear. It can be a complicated issue. For example, take a filming job where a helicopter is used with a camera mount, a cameraman and film director (who are not employees of the operator0. THe flight is carried out by an AOC holder who gets paid for the flight. The paperwork for the mount says that the aircraft C of A is downgraded to "aerial work only" as a result of fitting the mount. How is it ever possible to legally carry out this flight?
Last edited by Helinut; 11th Jan 2011 at 10:14.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,094
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For example, If I dry hired a machine, took one of my employees with me to take some pics, is that public transport?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
It appears that the company quoted by the defence are not on the AOC holder's list on the CAA website dated Nov 2010, so no pax would have been on board. If no PT pax were carried, then it would be aerial work and presumably no AOC was needed.
However, this is an abbreviated quote from the company's own website:
So the lack of the CAA permission must have been an unfortunate oversight in this instance. The court case emphasises the fact that it is ultimately the pilot's responsibility to ensure that any flight can be legally made.
However, this is an abbreviated quote from the company's own website:
******** will perform all the planning based on the information you give us.
What are you trying to achieve?
The answer to this will determine some critical flight parameters. For instance, trying to film a car being driven. Generally speaking, this would need to be done from less than 500 ft if you wanted to see close-up detail – see our Fifth Gear work on the Movies page. Flying closer than 500ft to any person, vehicle, vessel or structure needs a CAA filming exemption. Not difficult to organise – but we need quite a few details on the location in order to satisfy ourselves that the exemption is possible.
What are you trying to achieve?
The answer to this will determine some critical flight parameters. For instance, trying to film a car being driven. Generally speaking, this would need to be done from less than 500 ft if you wanted to see close-up detail – see our Fifth Gear work on the Movies page. Flying closer than 500ft to any person, vehicle, vessel or structure needs a CAA filming exemption. Not difficult to organise – but we need quite a few details on the location in order to satisfy ourselves that the exemption is possible.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whirls
ShyT
Does this answer your question Whirls?
The AOC holder is mentioned by name. Or didn't you know they held an AOC?
It appears that the company quoted by the defence are not on the AOC holder's list on the CAA website dated Nov 2010, so no pax would have been on board. If no PT pax were carried, then it would be aerial work and presumably no AOC was needed.