I learnt about harnesses by that.
 

During my time as a Winchman, Trainer and Examiner on both SAR and Support helicopters I always tried to impress those I flew with that the despatcher's harness was to stop them falling out and not to arrest their fall. Crewman, especially on Support Helicopters, would often lengthen the harness so as to be able to look underneath the aircraft or to reach the farthest parts of the cabin. It was brought home to me when we suffered a double engine failure during an approach in the mountains and, when everything had stopped and the Sea King was lying on it's starboard side minus sponsons, I was lying on the cabin door which I had quickly closed, contrary to the crash drills. If I had left the door open and had lengthened my harness I would have been crushed. To return to topic I would recommend the Despatcher's Harness as used by the British military as being simple and foolproof and, with the ceasing of UK military SAR soon, there should be plenty available.

Hello OSB you are slightly older than me but I bet we served together on SAR at some time. This post reminds me of the time the RAF took responsibility for Manston with Wessex from Bristow with Whirlwinds. A couple of days before the handover we were tasked with a PR shoot with the BBC. The cameraman had a monkey-harness on and we flew down to Dover and back again. On passing the Goodwin Sands said photographer shouted that he had seen a red flare. Sure enough, on investigation we found a broken catamaran with 4 people and a dog clinging to it. While the rescue went on the cameraman was leaning well out of the door 'scooping' his financial future. It wasn't till we got back to Manston that he realised that his monkey-harness wasn't attached to anything!

Worth repeating, when using a shoulder mounted camera, there is an issue relying on the seat belt because it is often loosened to be allow the camera operator to rotate his hips toward the door.

This helps to prevent the shoulder mounted camera from bumping against the seat back and reduces the need to twist the upper body and lean forward which is tiring.
The goal is to have the maximum scope to pan forward and aft without the airframe comming into shot.

A greater degree of body twisting is required when shooting out the right hand side to prevent camera bumping top of seat as camera is on the right shoulder.
On the other hand the lens is projecting a foot or so further towards the open door and so with less chance of airframe comming into shot (when shooting forwards) on the rhs than when shooting from Lhs.
If legal, removing seat back and/or the seat cushion can help with clearance. BTW, im told that unless the seat cushion is a very firm high tech foam it is better off without it in a serious crash.

Its interesting that sitting on the floor with legs dangling or resting on step seems to be less popular than it was a decade ago.

Mickjoebil

crew harnesses - Skywerx
 

this is a blatant add for Skywerx.
We design and manufacture this type of gear. It's proven to work in the most hostile of environments.
Ok mods, I'll take my kicking now..!
NNB

Its interesting that sitting on the floor with legs dangling or resting on step seems to be less popular than it was a decade ago.

They don't make 'em like they used to! For shooting out of the RH side this was always my preference in a 206 or 355 if the cameraman was right-handed. Its all gentleman's filming carriages now with remote cameras! ...Hope you had a good "Straya" day?

@ 5:00 is the bit we all remember most and the part that always springs to the front of my mind when I see these new bits of kit being handed around.
Watching the scene I think, 'Sarah (Michelle Joyner) isn't being stopped from falling when the kit fails, she is supposed to be being restrained'.

Having spent many an hour on the end of a UK military dispatchers harness, I'd have to agree with Oldsarbouy, "I would recommend the Despatcher's Harness as used by the British military as being simple and foolproof and, with the ceasing of UK military SAR soon, there should be plenty available."



Lovely little note at 11:00 :eek:

Whatever you use, I'm sure it meets all the safety requirements, and some; just don't meddle :ok:

Check EASA PCDS Memorandum issued 8 Dec 2014

Please find herewith enclosed the link to the document they released on 8th December Certification Memoranda | EASA (click on the first doc on the left hand side).

Bottom line anything used to secure someone who is loose in the cabin must meet EN PPE Directives and be submitted as a minor change to the aircrafts airworthiness.

I think you are missing a bit:
A harness used i.e. while filming usually is not tied to a hoist or cargo hook, is it?

Therefore (imho) somebody still sitting on the floor inside the helicopter would not qualify as HEC.

Ready to Fly,

Obviously you did not read as far as bullet point 3 on this list.
I read attaching a hoist operator inside the helicopter as no different to a photographer.

I read:
I do not read:
EASA made many things more complicated than needed (my personal view). I am not going to add to this complexity by interpreting what has been written. I just take it as it is written down.

From the camera person's POV, I've taken to removing lens hoods as it all too easy for them to loosen and aim for the tail rotor

The camera person is usually the reason for the flight in the first place - i.e. the helicopter has been chartered for the purpose of photography of some sort. That makes the photographer a fare-paying passenger, NOT a highly trained rear crew.

Fare-paying passengers deserve the correct equipment - AND - procedures for all phases of the flight.

For the avoidance of doubt: For sure he has to wear a harness. The harness' airworthiness approval is just out of scope of this memorandum when used for this purpose.

It should obviously be certified according to EN 361 / EN 358 (in europe).

I hear that the Notional Police Air Support procurement team may have a few spare harnesses :E

Nail