Flying Lawyer has quite rightly earnt our respect for his considered opinions over the years in this forum and others.

Epiphany's frustration with the behaviour of this low time pilot is shared by many of us. How many hours qualifies you to fly steep turns at low level over water with paying passengers on board ?

They're both right, but the sentiment of this thread should be "beware dangerous overconfidence" rather than "beware the camera".

There is more to this story than is set out in the first post of this thread, and just because CASA couldn't find the expert they wanted, it doesn't mean that the flying didn't happen. As painful as the $50,000 was, it might well have saved more than one life down the track.

Thanks for your last post Unhinged.:ok:

If he was wrong, CASA should not have pulled out.
Other wise,
CASA should compensate him handsomely for this.
CASA are out of control and incompetent.

[SIZE="4"]He was wrong AND casa pulled out


Well, more than likely a true comment above in purple, I am not in a position to argue either way about right and wrongs, except some staff members of CASA have made nothing more than accusation against this person who cost him massively, while the CASA staff billed me who paid for it then just said, nope, I am pulling out now when push has come to shove.

You paid for it to !!!!!
If they are going after people who are dangerous, well go after them.

I hope the pilot wins a huge civil case against CASA and the CASA staff involved have to explain under cross examination, who are in my opinion, now beyond responsible doubt, out of control. Many cases now in personal vendeters it appearers. Not sure of the twist in this case though. :ugh:

I am not saying that doing what may appear as steep turns with pax at low level is good.

simondlh
 

That video - does the R44 not have a sideways and backwards limit? Even if in limits, flying like that at that height in a SE heli is madness.:=

Agreed, there's certainly a good level of skill there, but possibly not judgment. Imagine if the engine had failed, worse still the R44 had hit the boat!

Hey Epiphany,


You seem to be a very one side thinker, do you have some axe to grind in this case,

I and 99.999999% of the rest of the free and civilised world stand by the Maxim that a man/woman or Heli pilot is innocent until proven guilty,
as this pilots case has been abandoned by an authority who by all accounts dont seem to play fair , it is now almost as though the incident never took place, had the Pilot been as reckless as you are trying to make out , then some quivering wreck of a pax may well have been justified in making a complaint, but as they did no such thing , then why are you getting all red under the collar.

You may have a job that get you into the areas that most others never see, but you also need to widen your views , it will relax your attitude to see that nothing came of what seems to be a sort of vexatious trial by Youtube and a possible desk bound penpusher who felt a little vexed on that day.

Peter R-B
Vfrpilotpb

Sorry Peter but I have to side with Epiphany (on the understanding that the footage did show a degree of 'over-exuberance' - I haven't seen it myself). Just because the pax didn't complain about the pilot's flying doesn't mean that the pilot is innocent - how many pax would know whether a pilot on a pleasure flight was going too far or not? People scream with excitement/nerves on a rollercoaster, but they're safe in the knowledge that they won't come to any harm; whether the helo pax were screaming or not, they would have had no idea that they were potentially quite close to disaster until the aircraft had crashed (just see the appalling tale of the RAF Puma crash at Catterick in 2007).

I can't say for sure whether this pilot was being reckless, but his defence of "I've been flying for over 5 years" doesn't fill me with confidence about his attitude...presumably if he is the innocent victim here, the tour operator will re-instate him without delay...

Shell Mgmnt wrotte : "With all due respect to my learned friend but the idea that

Quote:
It's well known that cameras can distort and give a false impression.
is just luddite horsesh8t.:ugh:"

SM, cameras can and do give false impressions. Example from another part of the transport industry.

Residents of an estate were unhappy with a bus service operating through their estate. One resident was a reporter for the local rag. To bolster their case, they got said rags photograper out to take a photo of speeding bus. Phot duly obtained and published, showing blurred bus. I happened to be on the bus concerned, in an official capacity (local authority , investigating the complaints), which was actually doing 10mph at the time. Bus was blurred as the photo was taken at dusk, on a very slow shutter speed off a tripod.

Different focal lengths can also be used to give false impressions (appearance of reduced distance between vehicles, for example).

So yes, the phrase "the camera never lies" is not only misleading, it is just plain wrong.

MD

:rolleyes: seems life jackets are optional as well in the R44 footage... always someone getting wrapped up in the moment and forgetting (ignoring) their legal obligations.

YouTube - AIRTIME - Jet Pilot Music Video

Im sure we have all seen this video before. I didn't watch it again before posting the link however I am sure there is a scene it where the helo rolls inverted. Now do you think the helo rolled inverted or did the camera?

Unless said camera is fixed to the dash of the acft (have not seen it) you will never know, hence no experts could testify, if it was a steep turn or a little extra twist of the wrist holding the camera. And if they were over water you will have no reference to judge the height.

Innocent until proven guilty I say! :ok:

TalkSpike.

There have been a few accidents over the years involving low flying over water whilst filming.

In crashes involving filming helicopters (or aircraft) hitting the water the camera operator has a higher fatality rate than pilot. On two occasions where the aircraft had a benign forced landing in water where all other occupants survived, cameramen have drowned due to inability to release their harness.


There are a few ways of reducing risks when shooting from a side door.

For instance, in respect to the boat video to get a shot of the starboard side of the boat they could have reduced the need for flying backwards by landing and moving the cameraman to the left hand seat.
Also the pilot's forward view, when crabbing to the left, was restricted by the front seat passenger, was he critical to the mission, could he in the back?


Helmets and vest style of life jackets are a help.



Mickjoebill

The video posted above was obviously "low budget" as it was handheld cameras vs wescam/tyler/spacecam mounts. Regardless, I am guessing the director wanted a continuous shot around the boat, where one cannot land and switch camera position.

@Epiphany
 

@Epiphany
Should a loss of license, job and more than $50 000 be considered lucky? - Especially after CASA admits after two years of time wasting that they have no actual evidence or grounds on which to charge the pilot.

In fact after John's lawyer informed CASA that the log book shows that at 12.30 p.m. on 28/9/2008 he was in Cairns preparing to depart for Hastings Reef (arriving at approx 1.15 p.m.), and not at Norman Reef to which CASA claimed the incident occured. CASA then deliberately and vindictively changed their orginal accusation to 'Date: 28 September 2008 Time: approximately 12.30 p.m. Place of flight: at or near Hastings Reef in the State of Queensland' still without conducting any official investigation. And this is just one of many flaws in this case.

Request for assistance
 

The link below takes you to an article in an Australian 'flying' magazine.

I warn you; it is long and technical. Problem is - I have little faith in "expert" witnesses and even less in my ability to assess the technical aspects of this argument. (Frantic palm trees + me; story worth a beer).

So, I humbly request some professional technical assistance from the 'chopper' fraternity.

Birds? What birds?

Any help with clarity would help greatly.

My bad - apply own advice before opening gob - Sheesh :ugh:

Shell Management
 

Your comment re the camera distortion is ridiculous. As a pilot and photographer for over 35 years, we use wide angle lenses to make things look bigger and further away than they are, we use telephoto lenses to make things appear nearer. Perspective can be dramatically altered either deliberately or by accident. Its not the first time I've photographed a garden with a wide angle lens and realised I've made it look like a park, equally I've been asked to take a portrait of a man with a huge nose and had to use a high focal length telephoto so he didn't look like pinocchio! So you are totally wrong..FACT.

I'm glad that mobile phone cameras weren't in existence when I used to wrack it around a bit.

Although the camera lies it takes quite a bit of dosh to "photo shop" 25/30fps video and even more to do it seamlessly without proper pre-planning.
Access to the original recording is the number one goal to build a defence.


It is possible to analyze a video by tracking horizons and creating a 3d terrain map ect to establish where the camera is in relation to the ground.
Camera phones are relatively easy as they have a fixed focal length although most suffer from rolling shutter artifacts which often distort the image when the camera is wobbled around.


Mickjoebill

casa and malfeasance
 

There is a series of posts by Kharon which make interesting reading. Also, the actual final findings, where there are "lots of CASA personell" at the hearing.


Just read:

http://vocasupport.com/?s=quadrio&submit=Search

Paul Phelan 's latest (http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr.../multipage.gif 1 2 3 4)
Kharon

The following has just turned up:

Quadrio witness used by CASA turns up in Court in Cairns

and another for viewing:



and:

CASA witness in Court again in Cairns | Assistance to the Aviation Industry

Witholding Discovery, Wait till the Court finds out, Good way to jail a Lawyer.