PAX B
Except there is still a need to be as close as possible for better results. What you are suggesting would help the situation a little, but no director would want to be so far away that the hand held shots are un usable in the name of safety.
So close as possible and remain safe, plus what you said is the way to do it if you can not go with a gimbal that is.

It's their formation training and experience that's relevant, not their total hours. They appear to be doing stuff which is against Lonewolf's standard safe practice.

Personally, I've done one photoshoot (FW) in the civvy world, having had the luxury of a very carefully briefed one in the RAF (with experienced aviation photographer and aircrew) as a model.

One has to do a lot of prep work as pilot, and be prepared to say no at any time. Being unsighted at any time is a complete no-no.

I also had the benefit of wise words from a very experienced back seater who had had 2 friends killed doing a photoshoot. He told me it was potentially the most dangerous thing in flying, as you were being directed by enthusiastic amateurs (in an aviation sense).

Yes, reality TV. Very, very dangerous and silly. Blame it.

:ugh:

Or get a cineflex and be far away - a much better choice.

FWIW:
Not understanding their photo mission, and thus what pics they were trying to take, one could still envision how one plans, and take precautions, if a given shot requires wing to be stepped down so that the picture is "looking up" at lead.

First thing, of course, is to recognize that it increases risk of lost sight etc.

If one is going to be "stepped down" as wing, the communications between lead and wing "where are you? - I am here!?" ("Two rotor diameters out at 4 o'clock, low" for example) has to be more frequent so that neither pilot loses SA, and so that maneuvers are made with sufficient safety margin.

As Fox pointed out, it is very important for briefing/planning, and the "go no go" decisions that the camera crew may hear need to be briefed to them, and explained why.

IMO, this would help the camera crew as they try to set up/frame their shots, if they know where their limits are.

Anyway, whatever internal comms were inside each helicopter, and between pilots, will be unknown until any CVR evidence comes to light.

Tragic loss of life. :uhoh:

You fellas sure can beat something to death. I saw two helicopters collide because somebody wasn't paying attention to what they were doing.

Some good points. I can image the reason for the 'stepped down' shot was to shot the rotor disc and backdrop, a flattering shot.

But if such close formation was deemed essential for the filming, why have the two aircraft full of ten people? Have as few people aboard for a shot like that. Better still, spend the money on a few hours of Cineflex and shoot an awful lot of B Roll from a safe distance and benefit from rock solid, safe shots of both helicopters.

I imagine there will be hell to pay for this, but it won't bring back the people.

So very sad.

There really is no substitute for experience on the part of the pilot. I'm a videographer and enthusiastic amateur but I'm not crazy and always defer to the pilot.

I got to shoot aerials of New York City on an amazingly clear morning with both a Tyler nose and Tyler door mount in a helicopter piloted by Al Cerullo. We spent more time discussing and briefing shots than rolling videotape but it was more than time well spent since we got some amazing footage. We also had to bust one of the shots we wanted since there were too many birds and there was a high probability of bird strikes.

Bottom line is there is no substitute for a professional pilot experienced in aerial photography and doing everything with the right equipment. Unfortunately, in this instance the pilots-which I'm sure were experienced-appear to not have had lots of experience with aerial photography work and it is unknown if the production company had the right equipment.

Sincere condolences to the families of all the victims.

TB

Yes, reality TV. Very, very dangerous and silly. Blame it.

Your words mate not mine. :=

All I'm suggesting is that as much as these unfortunate reality shows go on, the producers and 'celebrities' may well be more hesitant to go down the helicopter route of filming.

Do AS350's have CVR's (even as an option) ?

When looking at various singles for the military school in the UK, one aspect of the 350 that was not liked was the lack of perspex in the roof above the LHS. It made the view up and left from the RHS extremely limited.

The company were persuaded to fit two larger areas of transparencies to both left and right of the roof.

After running the video several times I thought initially that the lower/further aircraft commenced a right turn into the path of the other. However looking again it now appears that there is indeed a vertical element to this in that the two machines were not side by side but rather one climbed into the other.

You can only imagine the distractions which may have affected the pilot concerned.

Several options, including the Appareo ALERTS Vision 1000 (now fitted as standard, but only in recent years) and the North Flight Data Systems (/Outerlink Global Solutions) OVVR/CV²R.

I/C

Thanks Ian

From the serial numbers of the 2 helicopters involved, it seems as 1 of them being a B3e, which has the Vision1000 installed as a standard. The other machine might have the system as well as an option.
Not too sure how good these cameras cope with fire, but if it survived, there should be a minimum of 2 hours audio and video(2MP) and several hours of flight parameters.

I used to do a lot of film work. A film crew who sat down with company and pilot(s) a few weeks before a job and planned it thoroughly always earned my respect. The ones that always worried me were the spur of the moment guys, and the BBC were by far the worst. Little or no brief (programme always secret) Thinking they could magic arm a camera somewhere on the outside with no concept of airflow, wanting formation flying or something a little daring with pax on board. One bright spark turned up with a Robbo 44 with the doors off to film close formation with me in a 109E over central London, the Robbo pilot had never flown formation in his 350 hours and the director thought we were wimps (and voiced it loudly to the film crew) when we told him what he wanted was both stupid and illegal and that the clearances to make it legal would take weeks.

Another director decided to reduce the separation between my disc and a boom camera to about 8 inches despite me briefing the operator to stay a good three feet off. Eventually I shut down, called her boss and asked him at what point in my life she had been given charge of my safety. Later that day she became even more stupid, I flew straight back to base and filed an MOR on her behaviour. I understand she was quite miffed when she was sacked that evening. two days later we finished the job with an absolutely superb director.

Filming, like marriage should never be undertaken lightly. Both can really screw you up.

SND

Shocking tragedy to see & avoid.......Rest in Peace Blessed Souls

Was there ever any conclusion as to the cause of this accident?

i make short : Old pilot don't see the other one due to the sun shine...

I’m not sure I understand your post, is that the verdict of the official report? Does anyone have a link to any reports?