Model Helicopter Shoot over LA: May be a tad dangerous :D
 

NSFW:



Full story here

Model Helicopter Shoot over LA :) May be a tad dangerous :D
 

Me thinks a fair bit of mods were used in this , removing the pedals, dual control lol :P but I doubt EASA or the a/c I use, will allow this :D :mad:

Cheers

Rotor Effects :: Tianna G. / V/SUAL APPAREL

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...ps0350be82.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dq263cXKmg

Nice!! maybe we'll have a robbie in the rotor heads December desktop calendar???

:8

Not the sort of 'cracking time' you usually get in a robbie....

Do they have any vacancies there?):E

Airbags an optional extra on all new Robinsons! That's the Rotorheads calendar sorted for the next 12 months.

watch the horizon,
watch the gauges,
watch the horizon,
watch the gauges,


:):*

Model Helicopter Shoot over LA :) May be a tad dangerous :D
 

I prefer my aviation-related plastic to be airfix or revell to be honest...

CRM training just got a lot more interesting!:ok:

Role play this Mi'Dear!:E

i wonder how much extra stick time he clocked up with that flight.

Fats

Weight and balance anyone?


it seems quite a bit of weight at the pedal location and not much aircraft structure there to support it.

Old news in our house. I suggested similar option to Mrs 81 when I first got my license in an R44. :O:O:O

Didn't get the expected response :ouch:

Led to many nights sleeping on the couch :uhoh:

No sense of humour!

That reminds me.
I knew a lady a few years ago who suggested to me that doing it 😉 in
The helicopter I flew might be exciting. She had never seen an R44 up close
So I kind of took the wind out of her sails when I said there wouldn't be
Enough room
On second thoughts however !

R

Now I remember why I stared flying helicopters! obviously the Pilot forgot the seat belt briefing required under FAA rules.

I am pretty sure there was a very thoroughly briefing , certainly including all straps..

Bless Me but I just don't get it!

A fellow is fortunate enough to enjoy a film project involving a very comely Lass and the rest of you want to find every sort of excuse to call him an Idiot.

Envy sure is a strong emotion amongst far too many it would appear.

Helicopter flying is supposed to be Fun.

PDMG:Ohhhh PDMG. You're new here, so I'll go easy on you. This is a place, after all to come and learn. So come! And learn!

I suppose that some pilots might look at that video and see the unbuckled woman and assume that some FAR *must* be being broken. But if they put some thought to it, they might remember the last time they rode on an airliner in which the passengers were up and about, walking around. How on earth...?

"Takeoff and landing" is the key phrase, you see. Seat belts must be worn any time the aircraft is moving across the surface (i.e. taxiing) and for takeoff and landing. Otherwise you are free to move about the cabin.

If you like, you can check out FAR 91.107. In it you'll find that people have to be briefed on the use of seatbelts, and notified when to put them on. Section (a)(3) states that everyone onboard must occupy seat (with certain exemptions) that has a seatbelt, but again, for takeoff and landing.

If it was a charter flight, then FAR 135.117 and 135.128 apply. It's pretty similar. But again it only specifies movement across the surface and takeoff and landing.

Now, having said all that, if we back up a bit to 91.105 we'll see that required flight crewmembers have to be buckled-up at all times when they're at their station. So YOU have to be buckled in at all times. A helicopter pilot is probably not going to be getting up and hitting the head, but a fixed-wing pilot might, I suppose.

Bottom line: What the model was doing in the R-44 was not illegal per se. Dumb? Perhaps, but who am I to judge? Interesting photo shoot though, eh?

I don't fly in FAA land, so an honest q? Do you also have to be buckled in when the doors are off, or open?

In CAA NZ land, we have the same takeoff and landing, and under 500' belts must be on, also if doors are removed, all occupants must be in seatbelts or tethered.

surely with a body like that the lass could find something better than a 44... i'd give her a go in... :E oops.

Of course what the model was doing wasn't illegal. She doesn't hold an airman certificate, so what enforcement action could be taken against her by the FAA?

The airman, however, is a different kettle of fish.

If you've ever bothered to check your own certificate information online, you'll know that it seldom looks like this example, which is what is currently posted for the airman who flew the flight.

Draw your own conclusions.

I'm with Bob btw----I did not name this thread, but posted the video on the video thread prior to this one and they were combined by the mods.

And Nope---nothing illegal in this shoot. From what I can tell, it is part 91, therefore no floats required, no seat belt is required during cruise...what am I missing.

um....liftingTell us why? What rule did he break?

Gordy-

I don't know if he did or didn't violate a particular rule paragraph of the FARs and can't be bothered to look. All I'm saying is that if there was a rule violation, there's no meaningful action that can be taken by the FAA against the model if she doesn't hold an airman certificate. If the airman feels he's exercising good judgment doing what he's doing, I suppose that's his business if the FAA doesn't find any rule violation.

What I do know is that the status of the pilot's airman certificate as published on the certification website does not match the standard format, which normally tends to indicate a reaction of some kind on the part of the FAA, which is why I said draw your own conclusions.

The indications on the Airman Certification website are analogous to when a pilot has an alcohol incident, and a similar statement is appended to the information on the pilot's medical.

I believe this is done for the benefit of any potential employers doing due diligence.

I see what you were going for now. I did a quick check on some people I know with violations etc and got a few different different formats.

It would have been safer if she had a strap on , somewhere ;)

I once have been told (or shown?) leather belts or metal chains are quite suitable for arrest and restraining tasks

91.13
 

There is alway 91.13 careless and reckless operation.

"No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another."

The model perhaps endangered just her own life (seems she wasn't restrained and forced to be there) but I am not sure if she is the property of somebody else..

Yep.....watched it 69 times now looking for a rules infraction, can't seem to locate one, better look again....:E