Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

Twin Squirrel, Windermere.

Wikiposts
Search
Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

Twin Squirrel, Windermere.

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 21st Jun 2011, 18:15
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NW of SE.
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Twin Squirrel, Windermere.

On Lake Windermere yesterday, watching a deep blue Twin Squirrel flying low what appeared to be filming with a nose mounted camera. Made more interesting by the RAF Hawk, same hight, flying past it closer than what I would have been comfortable with.
Anyone know of a helicopter with that description and whether or not the two aircraft would have been on a common frequency?
andyhelo is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2011, 07:22
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Used to be God's own County
Posts: 1,719
Received 14 Likes on 10 Posts
essentially 'see and avoid'
Filming aircraft would have notified their actions within a designated Low Flying Area by a CANP which the crew of the hawk would have briefed prior to flight so, assuming notification was received in timely manner and accurate, and crew fully briefed then 'see and avoid'

There was some progress with fitting some form of tcas to mil aircraft that might indicate filming aircraft ssr.
EESDL is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2011, 08:36
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
would have notified their actions
Well...
Its a while I admit since I did helo film work but then CANP although widely advertsied was about as useful as a chocolate fireguard.
It had to be notified the previous day iirc via a cumbersome procedure and specify exact timings and locations in lat/long. As everyone who has done filming will know it is an almost impossible thing to schedule to the day, let alone the hour and unless the location is a fixed point it can wander geographically too depending on all sorts of variables. Anything involving a route was impossibly complex to report, and on some occasions when we did use it we still got close encounters - though whether they were briefed on our presence we could not tell.

The CANP reporting will still have to be made in time to filter through the system to be disseminated and included in the crew brief and that can never cope with the "go now" weather window and the location/timing variables seem pretty much insurmountable too. No doubt ease of reporting has improved, but can it ever work as intended?
In short CANP was a good idea but pretty much unworkable.

Its not as if the FJ's schedules are enshrined in stone either for the same reasons.
Agaricus bisporus is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2011, 08:55
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Head in the sky
Age: 70
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
filming

description sounds like 355F G-TAKE, op for BBC by Arena from Redhill.
1helicopterppl is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2011, 14:56
  #5 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NW of SE.
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thanks guys, learn something new everyday!
andyhelo is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2011, 16:40
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 439
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
More likely to have been BPRI from Stapleford working on aerial filming. Possibly, therefore, pilot will see this thread and tell you what we all think of CANP!

He's not my uncle.
JimBall is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2011, 23:41
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 578
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Here's a photo of BPRI with a very ugly looking nose mounted camera. Wonder how many knots you have to throttle back with this?



and here's the dark blue BBC one G-TAKE with a much neater arrangement - this photo from May 2011



For good measure (and yes, I know it's not dark blue) here' the SkyNews one

helihub is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2011, 10:04
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 439
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
BPRI is wearing a Wescam 24, most likely containing a film or Red camera. This mount can take most cameras and camcorders - which is why it's so large. And, importantly, it can carry big heavy film lenses for 35mm and Red. (Red is a 4000 line camera - as opposed to HD 1080 and SD PAL 625)

The mount in the pic actually has half the globe missing - so they must have been working on the install. Once back together it really is 24".

The 2 others carry manufactured balls : looks like the BBC get UltraMedia (standard def) whilst Sky appear to have spent Rupert's pocket money on a Cineflex HD V14.

I'll get my anorak.
JimBall is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2011, 17:32
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lost again...
Posts: 901
Received 120 Likes on 55 Posts
Is that a counterweight, to compensate for the Wescam mass, slung underneath the tail-boom on BPRI?
OH
OvertHawk is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2011, 17:52
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 439
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Yep. Or it may simply be where they keep the biscuits to stop the pilot & crew from being distracted in flight.
JimBall is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2011, 02:51
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK/OZ
Posts: 1,888
Received 7 Likes on 4 Posts
BPRI is wearing a Wescam 24
Pictured is a 36 inch gimbal derived from a Wescam unit.
Helicopter Film Services also has a 24 inch version.


Mickjoebill
mickjoebill is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2011, 09:17
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: suffolk uk
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
'Twas I.

CANP is slightly more use than a chocolate fireguard in that it positively attracts curious military aircrew to the site.

As stated, when filming over a large area such as the lake district and looking for a weather window, CANP is totaly impracticle. I rarely, if ever these days, bother with it.

I was carrying a Cineflex on a single pole nosemount; very neat but quite surprisingly the clumsy looking mount for the 24" Wescam doesn't degrade performance much although there is a considerable weight penalty.

I was filming "Beautiful Britain" for NBC who will use the material in their pre Olympic promotion. BTW neither the Hawk nor I was "low flying". As if I would! We saw each other at least a mile away and passed with a good 500' between us and a friendly "wing waggle" apiece.

If the Hawk jockey reads this I'd be delighted to see an acknowledgement.
uncle ian is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2011, 09:34
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 439
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
MJB: Pictured is a 36 inch gimbal derived from a Wescam unit.
Helicopter Film Services also has a 24 inch version


Agreed. 12 inches is difficult to measure........... 9.5 is my limit.

uncle ian: it's been a while since we've had a moan together. Have you failed the Olympic security test yet? From BHA briefing it seems you WILL have the "civilian" airspace to yourselves. Unless AFPEX actually catches up with the 21st century.....
JimBall is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2011, 20:37
  #14 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NW of SE.
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
uncle ian: looked cool from where I was. Thanks for the info and my apologies, I wasn't meaning you were low, just lower than my usual 2000'-3000' most days, definitely looked more fun!
andyhelo is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2011, 04:33
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Under my coconut tree
Posts: 650
Received 5 Likes on 2 Posts
I agree with Uncle Ian, I was CANP noticed doing bucket work (wet concrete)
near Perth along the A9 moons ago and had a Cat A airmiss with a Hunter that flew neatly underneath me while in autorotation with an empty bucket from the top of a hill...

Like flies round **** comes to mind....
griffothefog is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.