EASA SPO-AERIAL PHOTO/VIDEO FLIGHTS
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: France
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA SPO-AERIAL PHOTO/VIDEO FLIGHTS
Which limitations weather wise, else than regulatory would you set for yourself, having to do either a photo or film flight with an A350B2
as far as winds, ceiling, clouds, in a
coastal environment
mountaineous area
over a congested area
For specialist purpose needs: I tend to think that (within VFR conditions) 1500m visibility, 2000 ft ceiling, no AIRMET SIGMET during time of operation, guarantees a proper margin for good photo conditions, and pilot safety.
Mountaineous: I thought 20 kts reported at mountain base of operation, easily triples, once operating at higher or very high altitudes, which may rapidly become problematic due to area specifics.
Coastal: I have no idea what type of laminar or gusting wind would be reasonable.
Am trying to gauge what pilots who regularly and often fly these specialised flights feel comfortable with, to define limits for a group of pilots who very rarely fly this type of mission, whose experience vary greatly both in terms of total time, experience in specific areas, experience on type.
To further add to the equation, this group is thrown out there on a mission without any criteria set for selecting the pilot. The first pilot available goes and no one keeps track of the number of photo flight they fly a year, nor the times flown or the type of flight. HELP: I need a plan to suggest to these people, so they build in some kind of safety barriers for the activity . Thank you in advance for your input http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/.../eusa_clap.gif
as far as winds, ceiling, clouds, in a
coastal environment
mountaineous area
over a congested area
For specialist purpose needs: I tend to think that (within VFR conditions) 1500m visibility, 2000 ft ceiling, no AIRMET SIGMET during time of operation, guarantees a proper margin for good photo conditions, and pilot safety.
Mountaineous: I thought 20 kts reported at mountain base of operation, easily triples, once operating at higher or very high altitudes, which may rapidly become problematic due to area specifics.
Coastal: I have no idea what type of laminar or gusting wind would be reasonable.
Am trying to gauge what pilots who regularly and often fly these specialised flights feel comfortable with, to define limits for a group of pilots who very rarely fly this type of mission, whose experience vary greatly both in terms of total time, experience in specific areas, experience on type.
To further add to the equation, this group is thrown out there on a mission without any criteria set for selecting the pilot. The first pilot available goes and no one keeps track of the number of photo flight they fly a year, nor the times flown or the type of flight. HELP: I need a plan to suggest to these people, so they build in some kind of safety barriers for the activity . Thank you in advance for your input http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/.../eusa_clap.gif
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: France
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually I don't think it's much. I need suggestions!
So you understand the context, I set 20kts for a mountaineous environment: 20 kts is what would be reported at a mountain Airport base. Rarely are missions requested flown at base; more commonly they would be flown at much superior altitudes. However the pilots am dealing with thought 20kts is an absolute ridiculous limit. I had to stress they also carry a photographer hanging out the door, who may not be able to work properly.
Each point is "negotiable" and I would like the support of the community to make sure what I set for limits is reasonable for both pilot safety, and Customer mission.
I used to be a Professional helicopter pilot but I haven't flown in many years-I like the idea of community input.
Cheerios
So you understand the context, I set 20kts for a mountaineous environment: 20 kts is what would be reported at a mountain Airport base. Rarely are missions requested flown at base; more commonly they would be flown at much superior altitudes. However the pilots am dealing with thought 20kts is an absolute ridiculous limit. I had to stress they also carry a photographer hanging out the door, who may not be able to work properly.
Each point is "negotiable" and I would like the support of the community to make sure what I set for limits is reasonable for both pilot safety, and Customer mission.
I used to be a Professional helicopter pilot but I haven't flown in many years-I like the idea of community input.
Cheerios
Misterbonkers point was that in visibility of 1500m any photos will be poor in terms of contrast and colour - if you are dealing with professional photographers they probably wouldn't bother in those conditions.
As to wind - 20 kts is a sensible limit, especially in a light helo - it depends where you are trying to film - upwind or downwind of the mountain. 20 Kts can get very bouncy, especially if the airmass is unstable or you have mountain wave conditions.
As to wind - 20 kts is a sensible limit, especially in a light helo - it depends where you are trying to film - upwind or downwind of the mountain. 20 Kts can get very bouncy, especially if the airmass is unstable or you have mountain wave conditions.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: France
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good, thank you, you're confirming my initial point of view. I'll keep 20 kts for mountaineous photo flights.
Visibility: 3000 m; sufficient?
I agree criteria should be different whether it's a R22/R44 or AS 350, whether the type of mission is with a photographer/open doors, or a cameraman and fixed equipement on heli, whether the mission is flown at regulatory altitudes or is authorised NOE type flight. Having said that the one thing I think which will be common to all is visibility.
EASA asks to set criteria regarding many points, but I dont think "one size fits all" criteria can systematically work. Especially when the objective is twofold: to guarantee both the quality of the task specialist's work, and pilot safety for the activity.
Visibility: 3000 m; sufficient?
I agree criteria should be different whether it's a R22/R44 or AS 350, whether the type of mission is with a photographer/open doors, or a cameraman and fixed equipement on heli, whether the mission is flown at regulatory altitudes or is authorised NOE type flight. Having said that the one thing I think which will be common to all is visibility.
EASA asks to set criteria regarding many points, but I dont think "one size fits all" criteria can systematically work. Especially when the objective is twofold: to guarantee both the quality of the task specialist's work, and pilot safety for the activity.
