Downlink Antennas for Live Broadcast for Helis
 

If you get an STC/mod for downlink antennas for live broadcast like this for example:

Crosstube Antenna Mount AS350 / AS355

Is the rest of the equipment considered 'role' equipment and not needed to be covered by STC/mod? Do broadcast companies generally bring along all the gear and just need the heli to have the antennas to downlink via?

How about ELA/EM considerations.....

Looks like a nice piece of kit - better than the cargo-hook-mounts used for the swing-down motorized boom we used to fit for downlinks. And safer, too - too many times the shear pin broke when the dopey pilot forgot that the boom was still down when he landed.

Yes thats the way it is. But...

Don't get shocked when their gung ho crew comes in with wires tapping directly to your battery, spread loads of unsecured cables on the cabin floor, asked to hook into your ICS for a permanent communication, carry a "portable" power source into your cabin, computer and power unit loosely tie to the seat with seat belts... Certainly don't let your pilot question if these guys have their maintenance licence.

Better get them to show you how exactly they want to work with you.

@Mee3 yes that is exactly our expectation and what we are prepared for and will take your advice onboard. What is more critical is how we modify the aircraft and how the 'role equipment' will link to the antennas for the broadcast and what, if any, EMC/ELA considerations we need to make....actually the manufacturer has a very good SB that basically says, more than 25A electrical draw, 30W EM emission or HF aerial then you need to do an EMC assessment - this doesn't need to be part of the mod just needs to be carried out separately if you can't meet that criteria above. At this stage its looking like a minor mod as no significant effects on W & B, electrical load, structure etc...

Not saying it's right but images have been transmitted from aircraft for years with little to no problems that I'm aware of.

@farmpilot...it all depends on what regulator you are working under! :ugh::E

Point taken!

IMHO Farmpilot and Bluesideoops are both right, but are talking about two separate subjects - What's sensible and what's legal? I'm a bit out of the loop these days but let me throw a couple of cents in here.

Between 2004 and 2010 we did all of the world broadcast aerials from the Olympics, Commonwealth Games, Asian Games and Soccer World Cup (thanks to Farmpilot for the latter!). The camera-ships were pretty straightforward but the link-ships (re-broadcasting from ground cameras such as motorbikes) often resembled a TV studio that had been forcibly shoe-horned into a helicopter and then attacked with an axe.

Athens 2004 was the most complex since it was the early days of EASA and nobody really knew the rules we were supposed to be following. Since blank tv screens worldwide are never a great calling card we went right over the top and tried to simultaneously satisfy UKCAA, EASA and Greek local authorities. We took the view that anything should be assessed under three criteria : Did it interfere with the pilot's ability to do his job? Did anything pose the chance of denying the pilot electrical power in an extreme case where he might need it? Did anything pose the risk of becoming a "loose article". We then took half a dozen of the best engineers on the planet and invited them to insert said monstrosities into ten helicopters, using their best professional judgement.

I'm still not sure I want to widely share the pictures of what we ended up with, but it worked. As Farmpilot says - there were little or no problems. As Bluesideoops says - It depended on which regulator we were trying to satisfy as to which issues they raised. In any event there was no doubt we were into untried territory which had never been envisaged by the regulators.

In all cases common sense trumped legal BS and everybody happily retired to watch the opening ceremony. It would be nice if that were always the case but I recognize that Bluesideoops and all those who struggle with the legality of new-fangled gear have a hurdle to climb when the existing regs leave a subject in the grey area.

My advice would be to constantly apply the question "How is this going to look in the subsequent board of enquiry?" If the answer falls short of common sense then you're on shaky ground, regardless of whether you've gone by the letter of the regs.

Sorry to say it but not all answers lie in the books, some of them lie in the weight of the four rings you wear on your shoulders. (And therein lies the value of this forum).

Cheers to all
JerryG

Well said. The only concern is when after you crash, really.

STC usually only covers the pole and the turret. And that's what the inspector will see on the day he/she visits. Don't know how was it done 10 years ago, but today's 4k shooting with their active stabilizing turret itself will takes up all the utility can offer on any single. For this reason we helped a few owners to install a 2nd battery provision and a multi plug panel with a 40A CB.

A simple flight checking the magnetic and some discipline on the loose item will be sufficient imo.

Just FYI, the GSS systems pull 15amps max, so you are good on the NATO plug in a 407.